SUBSTANCE 



OF THB 



r 



REMARKS OF MR. WASHBURN 



BEFORE A 



Cnmmitee nf tfiB f Bgislature, 



UPON THE 



PETITION OF OILMAN DAY AND OTHERS 



DIVISION OF WORCESTER COUNTY. 




WORCESTER: 

PRINTED BY E. R. FISKE. 

1855. 



REMARKS. 



The patience and candor with which the Committee have 
listened to this case, assure us that the claims of the parties 
will be carefully considered, candidly weighed, and uprightly 
decided. 

What is the proposition before the Committee ? 

After an union of 124 years, after resisting seven attempts 
to dismember it, and two attempts to change the place of 
holding some of its Courts, it is proposed to divide the County 
of "Worcester, reduce her moral and political power and in- 
fluence, and destroy the cherished associations, historical and 
social, of her citizens. 

Clearly, whoever would ask you to do this, is bound to 
make out a plain undoubted case of reasonable necessity for 
the act; whoever asks you to change the existing state of 
things, against the clear wishes of a respectable proportion of 
her citizens, is bound to show a reason which shall outweigh 
the wishes of these citizens, and the presumptions arising 
from the state of harmony and prosperity that have so long 
been enjoyed here. 

This is a matter wherein the intelligent residents within 
the County are in a better situation to know the condition 
of its people, their wants and necessities, their wishes and 
their interests, than strangers. 

Indeed strangers can hardly be expected to judge, under- 
standingly, upon the subject, except by examining citizens 
and residents of the County as witnesses. 



So far therefore as these have had an opportunity of 
making known thek views, the Committee will not wholly 
disregard the light that is thus thrown upon the question 
upon which they are called upon to decide. 

Let us see how the evidence upon this point stood, up to 
the time when Gilman Day and others presented their petition. 

We learn by the report of the majority of the Committee 
who considered this subject last year, that a project nearly 
the same as the present, was submitted to the voters of the 
two Counties in 1829, and only 1350 were found to have 
voted for the measure. 

In 1852, a movement for having a half shire in Worcester 
was defeated in the Legislature. 

In 1853, a measure like the present was moved, and 3045 
petitioners within the 23 towns were obtained for, and 3681 
against it. 

The whole number of voters in those towns in 1851 was 
9345, as stated by the Committee ; so that less than one 
third of the voters in all these towns asked for the division. 

In 1854, the same measure was again started, and 742 
signed petitions for, to 4060 remonstrants against it. 

The whole population of the 23 towns is 44,911, so that 
less than one sixtieth of the people of these towns asked for 
the change. 

This is irrespective of the 95,000 in the other towns of 
Worcester and 151,000 in Middlesex, who, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we have a right to assume were op- 
posed to the division. 

Add to this, the fact stated by the minority of that Com- 
mittee, that of the 5 towns in Middlesex, 4 by solemn vote 
objected to the change, and 13 out of the 18 in Worcester 
made a similar declaration of their opinions and wishes. 

Thus stood the evidence of the wishes of those for whose 
pretended benefit the division was moved, when the present 
petition of Gilman Day and others was presented to the Legis- 
lature. 

How stands the evidence on this point now, so far as the 
number of petitioners is concerned ? 



After the repeated hearings and discussions had upon 
the subject — and* after the great effort which it has been 
proved, has been made by hiring agents to circulate peti- 
tions in the various towns, and the well known ease with 
which names can be obtained to almost any petition where 
no money is to be paid — 3473 names are appended to the 
Petition of Day and others for the Division, of whom 1125 
belong- to Fitchhurg, leaving 2343 from all the other 22 towns. 
On the other hand 4301 have signed a petition (besides 
52 names upon another similar petition which has been 
miscarried) the effect of which is that this Legislature should 
not pass a Bill to divide the County, but that they should 
submit the whole question to the people of the towns which 
it is proposed to incorporate into a new County. And among 
the last named petitioners are citizens from each of the 23 
towns except four. Not a person from Bolton, JIubbardston, 
Petersham or Winchendon asks for a division — nor is there one 
from Groton or Pepperell — and these towns contain more than 
one quarter of the entire population of the 23 towns. 

Bolton, by a vote of 143 to 3 is opposed ; Royalston, with- 
out opposition, chose an agent to oppose ; Gardner chose an 
agent to oppose, 80 to 7, unless the people voted for the 
change ; Petersham unanimously voted to oppose ; Harvard 
voted to oppose, 67 to 3 ; Lancaster voted to oppose, 75 to 4 ; 
Princeton voted to oppose it ; Phillipston voted to oppose it. 
Not one town has voted in favor of the measure. 

We start, then, with the presumptions all in our favor. 

1. From the length of time time the County has been 
united. 

2. From the opposition and defeat that have uniformly 
attended every attempt to dismember the County, showing the 
general approbation of the existing arrangement. 

3. From the repeated, deliberate, intelligent expression of 
the wishes of a vast majority of the citizens within the pro- 
posed County against the measure. 

4. And from the fact that in no town except Fitchburg has 
there been any thing like a spontaneous movement for this 
change. Whatever has been done, has been instigated or urged 



6 

on by emissaries from Fitchburg, as has been most conclu- 
sively shown here by proof. * 

Let us now examine the reasons given in these petitions 
why these counties should be dismembered. 

I shall confine myself almost exclusively to the considera- 
tion of Worcester County ; for it is not pretended, even in the 
petition, that the reasons apply to the five towns in Middlesex. 

The facts stated in Oilman Day's petition are : 

1. Worcester County is 60 by 50 miles in extent, bounded 
North and South by 3 states, on the West by Hampden, 
Hampshire and Franklin, on the East by Middlesex with its 
three shire towns, and Norfolk, and contains more territory and 
population than some of the states, and has but one shire town. 

We have no occasion to controvert these facts, and yet are 
at a loss to see in them any reason for dividing the territory. 
That the mere distance across a county is not a good reason 
for dividing it, against the wishes of its inhabitants, may be 
inferred, among other things, from the fact that Berkshire is as 
long as Worcester ; and Barnstable, if I mistake not, is even 
longer. 

Nor is mere population a ground for dividing a county. 
Middlesex, Suffolk and Essex had each a larger population 
than Worcester by the census of 1850, and nobody asks for a 
division of these. 

It is obvious that whether a country shall be of one size or 
another, depends upon the situation, convenience and condi- 
tion of its people. 

In a new country, with few and poor roads, 600 square 
miles, the size suggested as a proper one by the petitioners, 
would be a less convenient territory for county pm-poses, than 
one of four times that extent when accommodated by rail- 
roads to its several towns. 

So, while Suffolk with its 150,000 people is not too large, 
Dukes with its 4500 is not too small. 

Why the petitioners should take occasion to allude to the 
three shire towns of Middlesex is not obvious, since there is no 
suggestion of having another shire town in Worcester. 

Whether a county shall have one or many shire towns. 



must obviously depend upon the geographical character, means 
of access and situation of the people of the county. 

Essex, for instance, has no central business point, and hav- 
ing considerable cities upon its borders, to accommodate these 
respective masses of population, it has four shire towns. 

But after the experiment of years we find a decided effort 
being made this winter to reduce the number of these county 
seats. 

To accommodate the masses of the population in and 
around Cambridge and Charlestown — as well as the Central 
portion of the county, Middlesex for many years had but two 
shire towns. 

When Lowell had grown to a large city, with a dense pop- 
ulation around it, another shire town was established. 

So Bristol had a large and dense population grow up in 
and around New Bedford, and being without Railroad com- 
munication between the extremes and centre of the county, 
New Bedford was created into a half shire. 

In no case, however, has the number of shire towns depend- 
ed on the size of the county or number of population. 

Essex, with 131,000, has 4; Middlesex, with 161,000, has 3 ; 
Worcester, with 130,000 has 1 ; Suffolk, with 150,000, has 
but one. 

On the other hand, if size of territory is to fix the ratio, 
Barnstable should have 4 to Essex 1, and 26 to Suffolk 1, 
while Middlesex, compared with Essex, should have almost 9, 
and Franklin, by the same rule, over 7. 

The number of shire towns in other counties is no test of 
what is needed in this. Unlike them, she has a large common 
centre, presenting attractions and accommodation to every 
part in the way of business of VEirious kinds, and a focal point 
for all wishing to go by Raiboad to Boston, Providence, New 
York, Albany, New Hampshire and Vermont. This is con- 
nected with every part of the County by these Railroads, so 
that a person can reach the shire town from the utmost ex- 
treme of the County in a little more than two hours actual 
travel — and at an expense of rarely exceeding a couple of 
dollars. 



In this way, everything is as nearly equalized, practically, as 
can well be. The man from Warren, or Fitchburg, or Ux- 
bridge, can reach Worcester as quick and as cheap as the man 
from Holden or Leicester, who travels by horse or carriage, 
hired for the purpose. 

And when the Gardiner and Barre Railroad shall be com- 
pleted, as no doubt it will be, there will be -a Railroad depot 
within 7 miles of every town in the County, upon a Road 
leading directly to Worcester. 

So much for the magnitude of the County. 

2. The next statement in the Petition is " the 130,000 inhab- 
itants are characterized for' industry, intelligence, agricultural 
and mechanical skill, having added more than 25 millions to 
the valuation of their property during the last 10 years, and in 
proportion sufficient for a respectable County." 

We have no occasion to controvert either of these state- 
ments, and yet we do not perceive in them any reasons why 
the present Counties of Middlesex and Worcester should be 
divided and dismembered. 

Certain it is, this prosperity has not been retarded by their 
having been a part of Worcester County. 

The petitioners do not show that a dollar would have been 
added to the valuation of the County or these towns if it had 
been divided. 

The presumption is the other way, cmd the fact doubtless is 
true, that these roads which have given such a spur and impulse 
to the business of the County, owe not a little of their very exis- 
tence to the fact that Worcester was the centre and shire town of 
this large County. 

It is in this way that the individual towns have enjoyed the 
facilities which have enabled them to prosper. With such 
facilities, " industry, intelligence and mechanical skill " will 
hardly fail of success, whether those who have business in 
court will have to travel a few miles more or a few miles lesa. 

If the simple proposition is that the increase of population 
for the last 10 years would be sufficient for a county, if the 
circumstances of the people rendered it nece89ary or peculiarly 
convenient, we do not controvert it. 



But the idea that Worcester has prospered and enjoyed 
peculiar advantages for growth and business, because she is a 
shire town, is not sustained by facts. 

The committee of last year in their report urge this consid- 
eration " that Worcester derived great and material advan- 
tages from the sessions of the courts, the erection and main- 
tenance of the county buildings, and the residence of the 
public officers in her limits." 

But a slight examination of the history and comparative 
statistics of the town will show that this position is not sus- 
tained by any proof, nor did it seem called for in that report. 

Concord from 1800 to 1820, increased 109 persons ; Ipswich 
in the same period lost 752 persons; Lenox from 18 LO to 
1830 gained only 45 persons. 

The truth is, the growth and prosperity of Worcester and of 
the whole County, as well of its various parts, have been wholly 
independent of its being the shire town. 

Our earliest statistics go back to 1763-5. But by compar- 
ing Worcester with Shrewsbury, Dudley, Mendon, Leominster, 
and Fitchburg, or with the whole County, from that date up 
to 1830, we shall see that the position is sustained. 

In 1763-5 Worcester had 1453 ; in 1790, 2095,— an increase 
of 41 per cent.. ; in 1820, 2962,— increase 41 per cent, from 1790 
to 1820 ; in 1830, 4172,— an increase from 1790 of less than 100 
per cent., and from 1763-5 to 1820 was only 56 persons over 
100 per cent., a period of 55 years. 

The increase of Shrewsbury from 1790 to 1820 was 51 per 
cent.,— of W. 41 ; of Dudley, from 1790 to 1820 was 45 per 
cent.,— of W., 41 ; of Dudley, from 1763-5 to 1820, 120 per 
cent.,— of W., 100 and 56 over ; of Mendon from 1790 to 1820 
45 per cent., — of W., 41. 

Leominster from 1763-5 to 1790 was 61 per cent, — of W., 
41 ; 1790 to 1820, 50 per cent.,— of W., 41 ; 1763-5 to 1820, 
142 per cent., — of W., 100, and 56 over. 

Fitchburg 1763-5 to 1820, 575 per cent. ; 1790 to 1820, 51 
per cent.,— of W., 41 ; 1790 to 1830, 89 per cent.,— of W., less 
than 100. 

If we test it by the whole County, the increase is from 1763 
2 



10 



to 1790, 84 per cent.,— of W., 41 ; 1763 to 1820, 109 per cent, 
—of W., 100 ; 1790 to 1820, 31 per cent.,— of W., 41. 

Though Worcester had the county buildings, the offices of 
the court, her men of wealth, her agriculture and her trade, she 
did not grow compared with other parts of the county, till the 
adoption of that system of internal improvements that has 
given such a start to business through the state, and in few 
places more than Fitchb.urg itself. 

In Oct., 1828, the Blackstone Canal was opened. About 
1834, the Boston & Worcester Raikoad was opened ; since 
then, the Norwich & Worcester, the Western, — the Nashua, in 
1848, and the Fitchburg & Worcester, in 1849. 

These fm*nish the element of the growth and prosperity of 
Worcester and of Worcester County. 

And what is of exceeding importance in estimating the 
eifect of this increase of population and wealth upon the 
necessity of dividing the county, is, that the means of this very 
business and growth furnishes facilities for access to, and trans- 
acting court busitiess at the shire toivn, far exceeding any possible 
impediment that can arise from any increase of that court 
business. 

Let us see how this is, from the time-table of one of the 
Raih'oad Guides : — 

A man from Waterford reaches Worcester in 80 min., for 
80 cents ; from Webster, in 45 min., for 40 cents ; from War- 
ren, in 80 min., for 85 to 90 cents ; from Harvard, in 64 min., 
for 75 cents ; from Fitchburg, in 65 min., for 75 cents ; from 
Athol, exclusive of delay at Fitchburg, in 2 hours 40 min., for 
^1.80 to $1.90. Giving between most of those places and 
Worcester — and, during a portion of the year, every place — a 
twice or thrice daily communication, at less fatigue, less cost, 
and less time than, for 100 years, could have been had with 
places ten miles distant from the shire town. 

Mr. Stevens admitted that it was easier to do business 
between Athol and Worcester now, than between Middleboro 
and Plymouth, 16 miles apart, when he resided there. 

Arid Mr. Fletcher admitted that it was easier to do lousiness 



11 



between Leominster and Worcester than between Northboro 
and Worcester, 10 miles, when he lived there. 

And I repeat, when the Gardner road is completed, this 
facility of communication between Worcester and the south- 
ern and western portions of those 18 towns will be greatly 
increased, and the expense consequently proportionately cheap- 
ened. 

For near 120 years, have the people in this part of the 
county been content, even under the former inconveniences of 
access to Worcester ; and now that these inconveniences have 
been removed and even Fitchburg herself brought within an 
hour of Worcester, she starts the cry that she is ojjpressed, and 
tries — though in vain — to compel the other towns to join in 
the cry. 

The next ground for the division, as stated in the Petition, 
is " The expenses of suits arising/rom the costs of travel by the 
distance of suitors and ivitnesses in so large a county, are ruin- 
ously oppressive ; while the evil is still further aggravated, to 
the north part of the county, from the fact that Worcester is 
entirely south of the centre thereof." 

As this, after all, is the great point to be considered in 
determining the question of dividing the county, it is important 
to have our facts right. 

In the first place, Worcester is not so entirely south of the 
centre as to sensibly aggravate the evil of distance to suitors 
from the north part of the county — if at all. 

The territorial centre is said to be in Holden. The centre 
of population is not, as we believe, two miles from the Court 
House as it now stands. 

From five admeasm-ements of lines across the county, taking 
Hayward's Gazetteer, for distances, and multiplying these by 
the population of the several towns through which those lines 
pass, I believe the result will be found as stated. 

In the next place, a County organization is not practically 
for the mere purpose of sustaining Courts and the transaction 
of their business ; although these may be its main objects. 

They are for Political purposes, such as election of Senators, 
electing Register of Deeds, Treasurer, and Commissioners,' 



12 

&c. ; and these are made so partly by the Constitution, and 
partly by law. For Business — as convenient divisions of terri- 
tory for the transactions of Insurance Companies, Banks, &c., 
where the condition of parties, their property, &c., can readily 
be known to each other. Prudential — laying out and main- 
taining highways ; maintaining boards of officers for assessing 
taxes ; maintaining Jails, Houses of Correction, and giving 
employment and exercising moral oversight and control of 
convicts, &c. Social — For public meetings of citizens for 
political, moral and educational purposes ; of Agricultural and 
other Associations — such as Bible, Medical, and Temperance 
Societies, and the like. 

Nor do the petitioners pretend that the county is too large, or 
rich, or flourishing- for any of these purposes ; nor for any pur- 
poses but the business of the Courts. 

Indeed, it must be obvious that the larger the number to be 
accommodated by these political, economical, and social 
arrangements in any one county, the less will be the burden 
upon each individual citizen within it of maintaining the county. 

The point, then to which v/e are brought is the Court busi- 
ness, and whether this is such as alone to call for a division of 
the County? 

In order that we may consider the whole of this subject to- 
gether I read the balance of the complaint in the Petition. 

" That these expenses (of suits) are still farther enhanced by 
the multiplicity of actions in our courts and consequent delay of 
trials, an evil which, it will be apparent, must increase with 
our growth. So severely are our grievances felt that our people 
are often led to speak of Law only in terms of bitter reproach, 
and to submit to almost any and every species of injustice 
rather than seek justice by an appeal to our judicial tribunals." 

So much of this bears the air of a mere rhetorical flourish, 
that it is difficult to know how to meet it. 

How a defeated suitor may have spoken we cannot tell. 
But that those who have had the best chance to judge, enter- 
tain such opinion of the administration of justice here, and the 
necessity of dividing the county, in consequence, is not true. 
Of 248 jurors from these towns, who have served as such since 



13 



1850, and have expressed opinions on the point, 182 are either 
decidedly opposed to the division, or not in favor of having the 
change made unless the people, by their vote, shall manifest a 
desire to have it done. 

Besides, there is an entire inconsistency in the parts of this 
proposition. In the first place it is said, suits are multiplying 
so fast in our courts, as to cause great delay, and this is an in- 
creasing' difficulty. 

In the next, the people are led from the existing state of 
things, " to submit to almost any and every species of injustice, 
rather than seek justice by an appeal to our judicial tribunals. " 

We think there is something unfair, in taking evils and dif- 
ficulties which are inherent in any system of administration 
of justice and under any government but that of a Czar or a 
Turkish Cadi, and urging them as something peculiarly inci- 
dent to the size of Worcester County. 

That there is delay and expense of Justice we admit. But 
the same thing is true in every county, large and small, and in 
every state in the union. 

But we deny that to individual suitors there is any more delay 
or expense in this county than in the counties west, or in Bris- 
tol, Essex, Middlesex or Suffolk, east of Worcester County. 
Of the others I cannot speak so confidently. 

On the contrary, we believe and think we have shown by 
our proof, that Justice is as promptly and more cheaply ad- 
ministered in Worcester County, both civil and criminal, than 
in the small counties, or the large ones with several shire towns, 
with which we have been able to institute a comparison. 

Another preliminary remark I wish to make is, that there is 
something exceedingly deceptive, not to say unfair, in the 
manner of presenting here, by the Petitioners, the business and 
expenses and duration of our courts in gross sums and 
amounts. 

They tell us the number of days that courts of some kind 
are in session in Worcester, as if a suitor whose case is deter- 
mined the first week of the civil term in December, had his 
expenses enhanced by the length of the criminal term in Jan- 
uary ; when in fact the larger number of persons there are to 



14 



bear the expense of the criminal term, the less is the burden 
upon any one individual. 

They present the whole number of actions upon the dock- 
ets in a year, and speak of the number being a cause of delay 
— when every body knows that comparatively very few of 
these are for trial, and the calling and disposing of the entire 
docket of actions not set down for trial, occupies but a few 
hours of the first day of the court. 

So they give us in gross the costs of Jurors from these 
towns for four whole years, to startle us with the aggregate 
amount in miles travelled and dollars paid. 

As if they would sum up in round numbers the amount 
paid to the Legislatures for the last 20 years, to show that our 
system of government is too expensive to be tolerated any 
longer. 

The only fair way is to analyze these various matters, to 
see what of them are incident to the maintenance and admin- 
istration of our coiurts, and then, by comparison, see whether 
our citizens are less favored than other parts of the Common- 
wealth, or can hope for any relief by the proposed creation of a 
new county. 

Let me illustrate the deceptive effect upon the mind, of 
these gross sums and amounts. 

If it were stated to a person that the tax on Worcester 
County was |60,000 the last year, and that on Dukes was but 
^2500, he would be ready to believe that a citizen of Worces- 
ter was more severely taxed than one of Dukes. 

And yet such is the difference in population and valuation, 
that if we consider the individual burden on each citizen, it would 
be found to be nearly 25 per cent, higher upon each citizen in 
Dukes than in Worcester, and more than 33 per cent, on his 
valuation. 

Before proceeding to analyze these grounds for a division) 
growing out of alleged delay and burdens of justice, I am free 
to say that to my mind cheap litigation is a questionable 
good. 

While I would have every man feel conscious that he is 
under the protection of the law, that for every wrong there is 



15 

a sure redress, and for every right a safeguard, litigation is 
an evil which is not to be encouraged by cheapening, so as to 
multiply it. 

The sentiments contained in the report of Mr. Huntington 
on the subject of courts of arbitration or conciliation at this 
session of the Legislature, commend themselves to the good 
sense of every man. 

Just as bad passions are awakened in a com't for 5 dollars, 
as for $500. 

Another remark. There are times when topics of great and 
exciting interest arise which are to be determined in courts, 
where, especially if they are local in their character, a large 
county is a fairer and safer arena for a trial, involving one of 
those questions, than a small one. 

If now we undertake to see how much, in reality, the 
expense to suitors, in these 18 towns, in consequence of the 
size of the county amounts to, over what it would be in the new 
county, if formed, we find the average difference of distance 
from those 18 towns to Worcester to be 11 miles more than 
to Fitchburg, as stated by the opening counsel for the Peti- 
tioners, and by Mr. Merriam, their witness, who made the 
computation. 

In every respect except the matter of travel, the expense of 
an action, disposed of in court without trial, would be the 
same in Fitchburg as in Worcester, for in no case, now, do 
parties charge, or recover for attendance at comrt. 

The. travel, in all cases not tried, is done by the attorney, and 
the difference in the costs created by this 11 miles in any one 
case, is 33 cents for every 10 miles, or about 70 cents upon 
cases from these towns upon an average, or in the usual 
mode of taxing costs 99 cents. 

Our next inquiry will be, what proportion of the cases upon 
the docket of our courts are actually tried, in order to see what 
the amount of delay and expense is — for the defaulted cases 
do not delay courts. The attorney's travel is all the addi- 
tional cost arising from this 11 miles, except, perhaps, an 
additional 44 cents for the officer's fees for serving the wiut. 

I wish to call particular attention to this, because a gross 



•16 

misapprehension has been created in the public mind upon 
this point. 

In the "statistics " circulated by the Petitioners in 1851, but 
not inserted in their last form, it is stated, " on an average not 
more than ten trials can be had per week, at which rate it 
would have required 40 weeks to have cleared the Worcester 
trial list last December term. " 

And Mr. Mansur, in his opening statement, spoke of per- 
sons being called away from these 18 towns " 40 miles to wait 
on 600 or 1200 actions," as showing " a claim for redress. " 

And Mr. Choate, in the report of his eloquent argument last 
winter is represented to have stated that of a docket of 600 
actions, an hundred days only melted away 200 of them — as if 
it would require 200 days more to dispose of the other 400. 
(p. 49.) 

Now in fact the evidence before you shows what a small 
proportion of actions are for trial, and that there is no pretence 
of any such delay because of the number of actions, standing 
upon the docket. 

In 1851, we are told by Mr. Mason, at the December term, 
668 actions were disposed of in 58 days, and of these only 77 
or less than 12 in an hundred were trials. 

In 1829, the number of actions on the docket at the Decem- 
ber term were 1787. And yet, though the court had charge 
of the criminal business together with the civil, at the same 
time, it had occasion to sit but only 41 days during the whole 
of 1830, (as is shown by the record put in by the Petitioners,) 
to dispose of its business. 

Another illustration. In the whole year of 1851, there were 
1456 actions entered on the docket. Of these 1184 were dis- 
posed of, (as shown by Mr. Mason) in the year, and only 49 
verdicts in them all. 

A still more recent and striking fact in relation to actions 
actually standing for trial on the docket is before you. 

In Dec. 1854 (the last term), 329 actions stood for trial; the 
Court sat 56 days and disposed of 143 of them, in which there 
were but 28 trials — or only 1 in 5 of all those upon the trial 
list. 



17 



If we apply this to cases from those 18 towns, the same 
analogy holds good. 

In 1851, 249 of the 1456 cases on the docket, as stated by 
Mr. Mason, were from 11 of those 18 towns, including Fitch- 
burg. Of those all but 32 were disposed of, and those were 
not delayed by any condition of the docket — somfe of the par- 
ties being dead, some absent from the Commonwealth, and 
some insolvent, &c. 

And of the 249 only 6 were tried. 

When, therefore, it is attempted to show that business is 
clogged and delayed by the mere number of actions on the 
docket at any time, injustice is done to the truth of the matter. 
The impression thereby sought to be made is altogether 
erroneous. 

Let us see, in the next place, to what amount the people of 
these 18 towns are actually taxed by the year, in costs, in 
consequence of this extra 11 miles which they have to travel. 

The petitioners have put into the case the number of new 
and old actions on the docket in 1850, 1258, — since which the 
number, I believe, is rather less than greater. 

If we allow one-fourth of these to the 18 towns, which is 
more than an average proportion, the number is 314, which, at 
70 cents each, is $219.80 ; add the officers' travel, and it amounts 
to $357.96. Or if the travel is called 99 cents, that, with the offi- 
cers' fees, will be $449.02. If, then, we suppose one-third of 
these actions to be continued, making one more travel, we have 
from $438.04 to $551.98 as the total expense of cases not litigated 
from these 18 towns for an entire year. 

How this is to be reconciled with the argument of the peti- 
tioners last year, which assumed the " extra cost of travel for 
every suit not litigated'^ at " six or eight dollars,''^ is beyond my 
comprehension. 

When it is borne in mind that now all actions for debts 
under $100 may be sued before a Justice of the Peace, it is 
obvious that even the amount I have above estimated will 
hereafter be much reduced. 

And to show what proportion of judgments have heretofore 
been for less than $100, we find of 102 judgments rendered at 
3 



18 



the September term 1854, forty-five were for sums less than 
$100, — the old custom of going to the Court of Common Pleas 
being still partially continued, — a part of these being old ac- 
tions upon the docket, and some few, probably, appealed 
cases. 

As it will hardly be contended that a difference of some four 
to six hundred dollars in attorneys' and officers' fees for travel, 
in a year, would be a serious cause for cutting up a county, 
we must look for the cause if at all in the number and expense 
of litigated actions in court. 

Here, again, we encounter a false impression sought to be 
raised by broad and general statements. 

Thus in the printed argument already referred to, we see it 
pressed with great force, how " eight and . forty thousand " are 
compeflled to travel " eight and twenty miles " to obtain justice. 
And the inference drawn is, that an expense is thereby created 
of from seven to ten thousand dollars in a year. 

Now, a little attention to the statistics before us will show 
that the proportion of those in any community who ever have 
a lawsuit is very small. 

It should be borne in mind that it is parties only who 
suffer by reason of this additional 11 miles. Witnesses are 
paid for their travel, whatever the distance may be. 

Let us see, therefore, how many persons in those 18 towns 
are to be affected as parties to lawsuits^ in a year. 

In the year 1851, we were informed by Mr. Mason that 
there were 122 verdicts in the Court of Common Pleas. If we 
reckon 2 parties to each, there would be 244 parties. 

That is 1 to 536 persons in the County^ in a whole year, in 
the Court of Common Pleas. 

In 1854, the Court of Common Pleas sat 86 days. At the 
Dec. term they rendered 1 verdict for 2 days. Suppose we 
call it 1 verdict per day, there would be, after deducting the 
first days of each term — ,when scarcely ever a trial is had, — 
82 trials, or 164 parties — or 1 to 797 inhabitants, in a year. 

If we add the trials in the Supreme Court, it would prob- 
ably increase the ratio to about 1 in 700 in a year, in the whole 
County. 



i9 

K we confine our attention to these 18 towns, the ratio of 
parties to lawsuits to the whole people would be still less. 
At the last December term, 5 cases only were tried in which 
either party belonged to those 18 towns. 

That would give but 1 party to 3497 persons in these towns. 

From 12 of the 18 there was not a single trial. 

The petitioners put in the number of verdicts rendered in 10 
years, ending 1852, in both Supreme and Common Pleas courts 
in which both parties lived within the 18 towns, amounting 
to 117 or 11 7-10 pr year. 

The cases in the same time, where one of the parties lived 
within the 18 towns were 85 or 8i pr year. 

Of the cases where both parties lived in these towns, there 
were 1 party to 1493 persons, and if we compute the addition- 
al party in the actions where one resided within those towns, 
it would make 1 party to 1096 persons, who in any year have 
a lawsuit in either of the courts. 

Showing, that instead of "eight and forty thousand" only 
one in more than a thousand had to travel, once a year, 11 miles 
and back again, for justice. 

Let us now see whether even these parties do not get justice 
as promptly and as cheap or more cheaply^ than in other coun- 
ties ; and how far the amount to be saved, if any, could jus- 
tify or demand a division of the county. 

The evil under which litigant parties suffer must be the dif- 
ference in distance or travel of themselves and witnesses, for, 
when at Court, a case can be tried as quick and as cheap at 
Worcester as any where else. 

Nor is this affected by the length of the terms at Worcester ; 
for, as the cases are arranged, the northern towns are no more 
delayed while the southern cases are being tried, than if they 
were practically in different counties with different Courts. 

Another means of obviating delay by witnesses and parties 
in court waiting for their time on the docket, is the telegraphic 
and railroad communication, whereby a party and his witnesses 
may often be notified in the afternoon or evening and be in 
court in the morning, ordinarily within an hour as soon as at 
Fitchburg. Mr Hill mentioned a case within his own knowl- 



20 

edge of this kind from Harvard, where party and witnesses 
were notified at evening and were in court ready for trial the 
next morning, by the usual train of cars. 

Another remark is that of the parties in the cases we are 
considering — those where one party lives out of the 18 towns, 
had just as much right to require the other party to go to 
Worcester as to be compelled themselves to go to Fitchburg; 
so that it turns out upon investigation that some 30 persons, 
with their witnesses, in a year, have to travel some 11 miles 
further upon an average to attend court, than if the new county 
were formed as the Petitioners pray for. 

And let me ask, if to save this additional item of costs, the 
Legislature can feel themselves called upon to exercise an 
" act of government, " by compelling this community to sus- 
tain a new set of county officers and buildings, against their 
wishes, and expend thousands of dollars to unite these towns 
with Fitchburg ? 

In attempting to analyze the mass of documentary and sta- 
tistical proofs bearing upon this part of our case, I shall not 
undertake to comment upon them in detail. At best they are 
but matters of comparison, and are only important as illus- 
trating how far the petitioners are sustained in assuming that 
the people in smaller counties, and in counties with more shire 
towns than one, are more favored than the citizens of Worces- 
ter County. 

In jespect to the alleged delay in trials, 7-10 of the Jurors 
for the last 4 years who have been the best situated to judge 
in the matter, and have been inquired of, express an opinion 
the reverse of such an assumption. Nor do we hear any com- 
plaint, on this ground, from other parts of the county, although, 
if well founded, they would be equal sufferers with the north. 

In other counties, it is shown, from evidence in the case, 
that a year is the ordinary length of time before a trial is had 
in the courts, even in counties not half the size of Worcester. 

In Hampshire, as the clerk certifies, causes are usually tried 
the 2d or 3d term — and they have but 3 in a year. 

In Bristol, which has four terms, a trial is usually had the 
3c? or Mh term, as certified by the clerk. 



21 

In Franklin, which has 3 terms in a year, cases do not 
usually come to trial, as certified by the clerk, before the third 
term. 

In Hampden, the clerk certifies, « trials are not generally had 
under a year after the entry of the action. " 

And the facts in that county show what is true in every 
county, that occasionally unusual delays are experienced from 
accidental causes. 

Thus in their last October term, 5 cases were tried which 
were entered October 1852, one in March 1853, and 2 in 
June '53. 

Now, if we compare this with Worcester, we shall find as 
little delay, ordinarily, as in either of these counties. 

We expect to try our actions entered in the Supreme Court 
at April the same term they are entered. And Mr. Willard, a 
juror at the last Supreme Court of trials, tells you that the 
court adjourned repeatedly for want of business to do — and so 
obvious was this, that a juror upon the panel from Fitchburg, 
conceded there was not much necessity for dividing the county 
because of the court being full of business. 

In the Court of Common Pleas, December and March are 
the long terms, at which most of the trials are held, though of 
late years the September term has set two or three weeks. 

It is expected always to reach a trial within one year after 
the entry of an action, and generally we reach our March ac- 
tions for trial at December, and often the June actions. 

Mr Mason, the present clerk, states, (p. 10,) that in 1851, 
when there were 1456 actions on the docket during the year, 
" in all the cases which were actually for trial, entered previous 
to September term, the parties had an opportunity for trials at 
the December term, if they desired it, except nine cases which 
were not reached. " 

It will be recollected that this was before the change in the 
law by which all cases upon contracts, &c., involving less than 
$100, may be tried by a Jury before a Justice of the Peace. 

And, should the proposed court of conciliation, which is now 
before this Legislature be adopted^ it is impossible to calculate 



22 



the extent to which the business of our courts may be still 
further reduced. 

And what is remarkable, upon this subject of delay of jus- 
tice, the Petitioners have not pretended to offer any contradic- 
tory evidence to that which we have put in. 

In regard to the cheapness at which trials can be had in 
Worcester County, we believe the comparison with the other 
counties in this state will be found altogether in favor of 
Worcester ; though it is enough for om- purpose to meet their 
suggestion that it costs more in Worcester than in other coun- 
ties. It is for them to show that it does cost more, if they call 
for a division on that account. 

It is urged by the Petitioners that, 1st, from the size of 
the county it is more expensive obtaining justice ; and 2d, 
from the nature of the actions for settling titles to lands, 
water rights, &c., it is attended with greater cost here, than 
where the actions, as in Suffolk, are upon contracts chiefly, 
though they have not offered any proof that the costs of 
litigation are less in other counties than in this. We there- 
fore requested the clerks of Berkshire, Hampden and Suffolk, 
without knowing or having any reason to conjecture what 
the result would be, to give the amount of the costs in the first 
20 actions upon their dockets, which had been disposed of at 
the last term at which the judgments have been generally made 
up, — 1st, because they would have been longest in court; 2d, 
would embrace, probably, quite a proportion of trials to the 
whole number ; and 3d, it would furnish the fairest average, 
short of the entire list of the whole term ; and 4th, because 
Berkshire has about one third as large a population as Worces- 
ter, Hampden is one of the fractions into which old Hampshire 
was divided, and Suffolk was referred to by the petitioners, as 
being, in the nature of its trials, less expensive than Worcester. 
And I am glad the Petitioners have had an opportunity to 
scrutinize and see if we have been guilty of the slightest in- 
accuracy or mismanagement, lo make out our case, by any 
shaping of the evidence. 

The result has been, the average costs of the 20 actions in 
Berkshire, were $35.00 per action ; in Suffolk, $34.50 ; in 
Hampden, $42.30 ; in Worcester, $31.53. 



23 



Nor does it seem to me that the Petitioners have succeeded 
in impeaching the correctness of this comparative expense of 
the business of the Courts in these several counties. 

Besides, that you may judge of the average costs of suits in 
Worcester, independent of any comparison with other coun- 
ties, we have put into the case the list of judgments and their 
costs for an entire term. 

And of 108 judgments rendered at the September term, 
1854, in which 97 were for Plaintiff, and 11 for Defendant, the 
average of all Plaintiff's costs, including 2 extraordinary bills, 
amounting to $588.45, one where there were two trials, and 
questions of law in case of a Jury upon road damages, and 
the other the case of a reference, where the costs of the re- 
ference was $133.68, including referee's fees, $125; I say in- 
cluding these two cases, the average of Plaintiff''s costs were 
$22.67, and without them $17.07. 

And of Defendants' costs the average of the 10 cases was 
$30,50. • 

"With what pretence, then, can the Petitioners represent that 
" the expense of suits arising from the cost of travel hy the dis- 
tance of suitors and witnesses, in so large a county are so ruin- 
ously oppressive " as compared with any counties, large or 
small? 

If we test the question of expense, even by criminal costs, of 
which so much has been said by Petitioners, we find the costs 
in the first 20 suits in Hampden to average $42.30, while in 
Worcester they are only $36.28,— -as appears by the certificates 
before you. 

Now we do not pretend that that would always be the pre- 
cise proportion between these two counties, either in civil or 
criminal costs. But it is a sufficient authority for my repeating 
that justice is administered here as cheap as in larger or smaller 
counties ; and we believe we are justified in saying, more 
cheaply than in either. 

But I repeat, it is enough for our case that the Petitioners 
have failed to show that the costs of suits in Worcester are 
uniformly or generally higher than in other or smaller counties. 

But it has been intimated in the course of the hearing, that 



24 

one reason for the small number of actions from those 18 
towns was because people were deterred from bringing them 
by the increasing expense^ which is now felt to such an extent 
as to lead to this movement for separation. 

Facts and statistics do not sustain this position, any more 
than they have the others of Petitioners' positions. 

All over the state the number of actions for the mere collec- 
tion of debts has fallen off within a few years past, while the 
number of litigated cases has greatly increased. 

In 1828 and 29, the number of actions on the docket, at a 
single term, were 1373 and 1787 ; and the Court sat but about 
forty days in a year for civil and criminal business together. 

In 1853, there were but 849 actions entered, and yet the 
Court sat 97 days. 

The number both of actions for collection of debts and for 
trials have been and will be still more essentially diminished 
by the change in jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace. Thus : 
the number of days of Court in Worcester in 1851, was 100 ; 
in 1852, 92; in 1853, 97; in 1854,82. 

But the average number of trials from the 18 towns has not 
diminished since 1842, as shown by Petitioners' own statistics. 

In the Court of Common Pleas the trials, in 1843, 44, and 45, 
were 9, 7, 13 — average 9| ; in 1850, 51, and 52, they were 7, 
13, 7 — average 9 ; only showing a difference of three-fourths 
of a case in the average of three years, in cases where both 
parties lived in the 18 towns. 

And in cases where one of the parties only lived in those 
towns, the average of 1843, 44 and 45, was 7 ; while the average 
of 1850, 51 and 52, was 8 — showing an increase of 1 in the 
three latter years. 

But a broad constitutional question has been raised by the 
Petitioners, who, — after more than seventy years'' acquiescence 
on the part of the people of those 18 towns, during most of 
which time none of the modern facilities of access to Worces- 
ter were enjoyed, and while, as we have seen, a. g-reat inajority 
even now are opposed to the proposed change, — take the high 
ground that they have a constitutional right, in the language 
of Col. Phillips, to " demand " this accommodation of a new 



25 

county. In this he is sustained by Mr. Crocker, and a consid- 
erable part of the eloquent argument of Mr. Choate last year 
was based upon the same assumption. 

The argument is, that the Bill of Rights lays down certain 
propositions which the Petitioners undertake to apply to this 
particular case. 

Thus, Col. Phillips says, the 13th Art. of that Bill gives a 
right to be tried " in the vicinity " where the facts happen. 

But, when asked to define what he meant by " vicinity^'' he 
frankly admitted that it must depend upon the circumstances 
of each particular case, the cheapness and readiness of access, 
and the like. 

Mr. Crocker, on his part, defined this by having a Court 
House near enough to every man to go and return to his home 
the same day. 

Before the day of railroads that would have required a 
court house about every twenty miles. 

And it is a little singular that the framers of this Bill of 
Rights never seem to have made this discovery, nor to have 
taken any measures towards restoring to their fellow-citizens 
living out of Dukes, Nantucket, and Suffolk, rights which have 
been suffered so long to lie dormant. 

Even now, by that test, you would have to create a new 
county between Barnstable and Provincetown ; although some 
entire terms of the court in Barnstable go by without a single 
case, civil or criminal, for trial. 

But let us analyze this claim founded upon the Articles in 
the Bill of Rights, which were rather intended to indicate the 
general duties of the government towards its citizens, than to 
define. precisely hoio this shall be done. 

Thus it is declared that the citizen " ought to obtain right 
and justice freely and without being obliged to purchase it." 
(11th Art.) 

But will it be pretended that our court houses are to be 
built, our courts supported, our officers maintained, and wit- 
nesses and counsel paid for, in all cases, for every suitor who 
chooses to go to law, and all without any charge to him ? 
It is declared that the citizen ought to obtain right and jus- 
4 



26 

tice " completely and without denial, promptly and without 
delay. " 

But was it ever supposed that courts and juries could never 
make mistakes? Or that the moment a suitor presented him- 
self before the court, his cause should be heard and decided, and 
if 20 or 50 or 500 come at the same time, they should all be 
heard together ? 

Was it intended by the constitution that every man should 
have a court house and a judge just so far from his house as 
every other one has, — that Dukes County should have as 
many terms as Suffolk, or a citizen in Suffolk should have his 
cause tried just as quick and just as cheap as the men living 
in Edgarton or Nantucket? 

Every body knows that with all the beautiful theory of our 
government, these things cannot be practically accomplished. 

Nor did the article of the Bill of Rights above recited, when 
examined, contemplate that such perfect equality should be 
attained; for it adds, after stating that he ought to obtain right 
&c, " conformably to the laws ", — that is, that the right of all 
citizens should be protected, enforced and enjoyed according 
to known prescribed laws, applicable as far as reasonably possi- 
ble alike to all. 

It no where says that a bUl of costs shall be the same in 
Berkshire, Hampden and Worcester, or that no man shall be 
obliged to have his cause tried at the disadvantage of being 
opposed by the power and eloquence of men who grace the 
courts of this Capital. 

But in such a govement as ours, things, if left to themselves, 
tend to an equality. 

The people cannot all live close to a court house, even if the 
county contains only 600 square miles as advocated by the 
Petitioners. 

Those who live near or in the shire town, find it attended 
with expense, they are taxed to build roads from the remote 
parts of the county to that point, though they may never travel 
them, while they are obliged to maintain their own streets at the 
same time; and those who never have a lawsuit are taxed to 
support court and courts houses for those who have, and to 



27 



sacrifice their own comfort and business to sit as jurors upon 
other people's matters. 

The law, too has its " delays," and always has had, and al- 
ways will have. And so there has always been and al- 
ways will be, " the oppressor's wrong " and " proud man's con- 
tumely." 

But it is idle to think of reorganizing society in order to get 
rid of those evils w^hich are inherent in the very constitution of 
society in whatever form we find it. 

The legislature can only take things as they find them, and, 
in view of aU the existing circumstances, so adapt their legis- 
lation as to do the greatest good to the greatest number. 

The question is not what you would do if this were an un- 
organized territory — so many square miles in Kansas or Minne- 
sota. But the county exists and its parts have adapted them- 
selves to the existing state of things. 

Ample accommodations are provided, in suitable public 
buildings, for such a county for a century to come. 

Highways are already constructed. RaU roads, centering 
in Worcester, are already built, with the exception of one, and 
that will be as surely built as the world goes on. 

It is idle to scout or disparage the proposition that the Gard- 
ner and Barre Railroad will be built. That part of the coun- 
ty need it, have the ability to build it, and cannot afford to be 
without it. 

Clinton's " Big Ditch " became a by-word for scoffers in his 
day and the Western Railroad was, to mjj personal knowledge 
and experience, as much derided as any work could be as a 
visionary and Utopian scheme. Nor had it at its commence- 
ment an hundreth part of the encouragement of success that 
this road now has. 

And when that is completed, there will be a twice or thrice 
daily communication between Worcester and every town in 
that part of the county. 

The very solicitude manifested by the advocates for this 
division, and their readiness to decry and discourage this road, 
ought to satisfy us of their apprehension that it will be made. 

When that is done Fitchburg will, by reason of the com- 



28 



parative heavy grades in her road, be left one side of the great 
line of the western travel in its way to the seaboard. 

The chance of then calling for a division of the county will 
be constantly growing less, and we can readily understand the 
meaning of Mr. Choate's language, last year, when he said, " if 
you are ever to do any thing for us now is the time. " (p. 63.) 

I have thus far been considering the business of the Courts^ 
as a ground for dividing the County, for not only, after all, is 
that the great argument on which the Petitioners rest their case, 
but even this is narrowed down to the mere consideration of 
the distance ivMch those having trials in Court are obliged to 
travel with their witnesses noiv, compared with what would be 
the case if they went to Fitchburg. 

Mere wealth or popidation is not a ground for division. 

Suffolk, including those who live and do business in Boston, 
is half as large again as "Worcester, with four times as much 
wealth, and yet nobody ever thought of dividing that county. 

On the contrary, an act was passed last winter and adopted 
by a major vote of both cities, to cut off Charlestown from 
Middlesex, " with its three shire towns, " and annex it to Suf- 
folk. 

And when it is proposed to annex Roxbury and other towns 
to Boston, I have not heard any apprehension expressed that 
they would not obtain justice as fairly in Suffolk as in Norfolk 
or Middlesex. 

I come now to another position of the Petitioners in regard 
to the Court business of these towns, and that is that in conse- 
quence of the distance of these towns, those who have claims 
to sue, refer them to arbitrators, when they would otherwise 
try them by Jury, as they have a right to do. 

This is sought to be sustained by the testimony of Mr. 
Wood, Mr. Whitney, Mr. Fletcher, and Mr. Norcross. 

Mr. Wood expresses the opinion that one half or two thirds 
of the cases for litigation are referred. He recollects two cases, 
Hill's and Kelton's, and seven, at the last term, but could recal no 
others. And he frankly added that he did not know as any 
more were referred from his part of the County than from other 
parts. 



29 



Mr. Whitney recollected 8 cases since 1850, 3 of them the 
same mentioned by Mr. Wood, and stated that about one case 
a year was tried frQm Templeton. 

Mr. Fletcher recollected two of the same cases mentioned 
by Mr. Wood, and could only recollect one litigated case from 
Leominster in 5 years. 

Mr. Norcross recollected the same 7 cases mentioned by Mr. 
Wood. 

Two of the parties in these 7 cases were of Fitchburg, and 
2 of Leominster, within an hour's ride from Worcester. 

Our answer to this position and this proof is — 1st. From 
the very nature of law business, arbitration is often resorted to 
as the best and most satisfactory mode of determining many 
cases, even when the parties live in sight of the Court House, — 
but by no means the cheapest. In the case already mentioned 
the fees of the Referrees were $125 — when of witnesses, party 
costs, &c. all the charge was about 15 dollars. 

2. That, in fact, it is no more common, if so much so, to re- 
sort to arbitration in Worcester County than in small counties, 
and those in which are more than one shire town. 

And 3d. That so far as the evidence is before us, it is no 
more resorted to from these 18 towns, if as much so, as from 
other parts of the County, from which we hear no complaint. 

The settling of difficulties and disputes by arbitration is as 
old as the Common Law, if not the Bible itself — and volumes 
have been written to define and explain the Common Law on 
the subject. 

In the next place, it is a mode provided for by statute, 
occupying an entke chapter (114) of our Revised code. 

In the next place, the forms of law in our Courts provide 
for this very mode of determining questions, by what is called 
« Rules of Court. " 

In the next place, all matters of complicated accounts are 
sent to auditors, by order of the Court, if the parties do not 
choose to make it a matter of arbitration; because Juries 
are not a proper tribunal to examine and state long and 
complicated accounts. And this class of cases are often re- 
ferred, as every lawyer and suitor knows. 



30 



So reasonable and usual is it to refer disputes to arbitrators, 
that some states are said to have " Courts of Conciliation " 
answering this very purpose. And our own Legislature have 
a similar proposition now before them, sustained by a learned 
and able report. And every body knows that there is a very 
general sense where persons have difficulties which they cannot 
settle between themselves, that the fairest way is to " leave it 
out to men. " 

Another class of cases are those requiring men of peculiar 
experience or science to decide them, and the parties choose to 
select these rather than to depend upon a jury, drawn from 
the common business pursuits of life, even though it is much 
more expensive. 

HilVs case was of this kind, and was referred mainly on that 
account, and not because the parties were not willing to incur 
the trouble and expense of witnesses, &c. — for the witnesses 
were in attendance, and the case had been partly tried, when 
the parties concluded to refer it. 

If we inquire how this is in other counties, the- clerk of 
Hampshire certifies " cases are frequently referred " in that 
county. 

Hampden. " It is a common practice." 

In Essex, {with four shire towns,) 35 cases were referred in 
1858, and 40 in 1854. 

How is the fact in this respect in our own County ? 

The Clerk certifies that for the several terms of the Court of 
Common Pleas, in 1853 and 1854,41 cases and no more were 
referred or awards made — making on an average but 5\ cases 
per term — about half as many as in Essex during the same 
period. 

If we examine, I think we shall find Mr. Wood was correct 
in not assuming that any more cases in proportion were 
referred from those 18 towns than the rest of the County ; for 
we find by Mr. Mason's statement that, of 249 cases from 
eleven of these towns, including Fitchburg, (whether there 
were any from the other 7 or not is not stated,) in the year 
1851, all but 32 were disposed of, and on\y four of the number 
were referred, and in all these four the parties resided in Fitch- 



31 



bvrg' — practically nearer Worcester than most of the 18 towns, 
off the direct line of the railroad, are to Fitchburg. 

Here are facts against theory; and which will the Com- 
mittee adopt as their guide ? 

But the Petitioners go further and say, that because of the 
distance of these towns from Worcester, not only parties for- 
bear to try their actions in court, and therefore refer them, but 
many persons forbear to prosecute just claims on account of 
the expense of travelling so far. 

Let us now see what is the proof of this, and if it does not 
turn out like so many others of Petitioners' assumptions. 

Mr. Ware states two cases — one in the Courts of Law, the 
other in Probate. 

In respect to the first, a part of the claim, $150, was recov- 
ered after a trial, and a suit was then brought for the balance, 
$50 — depending, as I understand him, upon the same facts. 

But as the defendant manifested a determination to resist 
the claim, the plaintiff abandoned it, and paid defendant's 
costs, rather than incur the expense of the trial. 

If that was a recent affair, the question arises, why plaintiff 
did not sue the action before a Justice of the Peace, and have 
the trial at his own door, as he might have done, if he believed 
he really had a just claim ? 

In the other, I understood him to say, he advised to give up 
a claim of two to three hundred dollars, growing out of a 
Guardian's account, rather than contest it. 

I understood him to admit there was no danger of any delay 
in the hearing ; for the Judge was ready if he came to Wor- 
cester. 

It would only make some 20 miles difference in the travel 
of his witnesses, as I understand the relative distances from 
Fitchburg and Worcester, which would be about $1.60 each. 
So that if he had the very unusual number of 30 witnesses, it 
would only have made $48 difference. 

And 1 think the Committee must have been satisfied after 
the frank explanation of Mr. Ware — ^who is too fair and hon- 
orable to misrepresent a case — the cause why it was thought 



32 



best not to prosecute this claim, was rather the engagement of 
the counsel, than that Fitchburg was not a shire town. 

The true explanation of the few number of suits from those 
eig'hteen towns is most creditable to them. 

They are intelligent, thriving, industrious people, each 
pursuing and managing his own business honorably and dis- 
creetly ; and being, withal, free from that curse of any com- 
munity, a class of pettifogging, mischief-making lawyers, they 
have, comparatively, few controversies to settle in courts. 

I might find a parallel in the County of Barnstable, where, 
with a population of over 35,000 thriving, intelligent, indus- 
trious men, a whole six months has gone by, at times, without 
a single case, civil or criminal, for the decision of court or jury 
in that county. 

Do such men need a multiplication of court-houses, and courts, 
and jails, and houses of correction ? I think I know them too 
well and too long to believe it for a moment. 

Another ground on which a division is asked, is the amount 
and expense of the criminal business of the County. 

In the first place, it is not denied that the criminal business 
of the County is well and promptly done, and all of it done 
satisfactorily. 

In the next place, the Jail is delivered three times a year; 
while in the smaller counties, prisoners may have to lie six 
months before the time of a Court arrives, and unintentional 
cruelty and injustice be often done in that way. 

In the next place, it is cheaper keeping prisoners where 
there are arrangements like those at Worcester for their em- 
ployment, than in smaller counties. And if it were not, the 
burden of keeping convicts from these 18 towns is a charge 
upon the whole County or State, and not upon those towns. 

In respect to the comparative cost of criminals and criminal 
proceedings, we have statistics that settle the question. 

If we go behind the gross amounts and large generalities, in 
which the Petitioners deal, we find that in the amount of crim- 
inal costs, Hampden, Essex, Bristol and Berkshire all stand 
higher upon their respective valuations than Worcester. And 



33 

that the accuracy of my calculations may be tested, I gi^e 
them, as made upon the respective amounts of the costs of the 
last year : — 

Hampden, amount of costs, $14,620—6.4; Essex, $32,070— 
5.6; Bristol, $18,123—5.6; Berkshire, $8,755—5.0; Worcester, 
(as stated by Co. Commissioners,) $24, 303—4.3 ; Hampshire, 
$4,820—3.6. 

And as to the comparative expense of supporting prisons, 
in Hampshire, Franklin, and Hampden, the board per week in 
Jail and House of Correction, is $1.75, but in Worcester, it is 
only $1.40, per week. 

We may repeat what I have already stated, that, while the 
costs of the first twenty criminal actions on the docket in 
Hampden, averaged $42.20, the same number in Worcester, 
averaged only $36.28. 

But what I regard as of far more importance than mere 
expense in respect to criminals, is the effect upon the criminals 
themselves, of a well or badly managed Jail or House of Cor- 
rection. 

In small counties with but few convicts, it is impossible, 
with any reasonable expense, to provide for their systematic 
employment or the application of proper means of reform. 

If such men are left idle and uncared for, to associate 
together and corrupt each other, the purposes of imprisonment, 
as a measure of reform, are worse than lost. 

Under the present system at Worcester, the inmates are 
kept constantly employed ; there is a constant oversight of 
them ; they have the advantages of religious worship, preach- 
ing, and Sabbath schools ; and they feel that they are yet 
remembered and cared for in the sympathies of the good. 

And the influence and moral effect of this is incalculable. 
It has not been understood or appreciated till of late. How- 
ard's "pilgrimage of mercy" formed a new epoch in the 
history of criminal jurisprudence and prison discipline. 

The whole Christian world is interested in»the condition of 
the prisoner, to save and restore him, if possible, instead of 
shutting him up in idleness, to brood over mischief, or cor- 
rupt and be corrupted by wicked associations. 
5 



34 

When, therefore, we contend that it is better to have the 20 
or more per year that are sent from those 18 towns to the 
House of Correction, in such an Institution as the County now 
has, than in any similar establishment that could be hoped 
for in the proposed new county, we are but pleading the cause 
of a generous humanity and Christian brotherhood. 

And on this subject, I commend to the attention of the 
Committee, the Report of the Committee who visited all the 
prisons in the Commonwealth, since the last session of the 
Legislature, — which is among the files of your papers ; and we 
feel fully sustained and justified by that, for everything I have 
said on this subject. 

Another reason put forth by the Petitioners for their pro- 
posal, is the alleged difficulty in doing the Probate business of 
the 18 towns. Mr. Choate's argument puts down for the 23 
towns, " for the extra Probate business — travel of parties, 
$1000 per year." (p. 47.) 

In the first place, there are six Courts in a year within these 
18 towns ; and in ordinary cases, the delay of a month or two, 
in order to attend to business at these, would occasion no 
inconvenience. 

In the next place, to go to Worcester, is only, on an aver- 
age, eleven miles further than it would be to go to Fitch- 
burg. 

In the next place, no man complains of any dclaij at Wor- 
cester, if the parties choose to go there. They always can 
knoiv when their cases may he heard. 

The ordinary business in the Probate Office takes so short 
a part of the day, that persons coming by railroad can com- 
monly go and return the same day, as has been stated by 
various witnesses. 

And besides, it is generally a convenient occasion to attend 
to other business, insurance, purchase of goods, stock, &c. &c. 

And what is the fact practically? Mr. Ilawes — who is an 
advocate for a division of the County, and lives 4 or 5 miles 
from Fitchburg — in 20 years' experience in Probate business, 
never went to Fitchburg but in 3 cases. 

If there were any difficulty of this kind it would be perfectly 



35 



easy, and with but little cost, to multiply the terms of the 
Court, in that part of tlie County. 

But the statistics of the business last year, shows that par- 
ties would still come to Worcester, for the reasons I have 
stated, because they prefer to do so. 

There were in 1853, 132 letters of administration and testa- 
mentary, granted in these 18 towns, and of these, 114 were 
taken at Worcester. 

In 1854, 122 were granted, and of these, 101 were granted 
in Worcester. 

And what is more palpable even in respect to Fitchburg 
itself; in 1853, 10 out of 14 were granted in Worcester, and 
in 1854, 17 out of 18, showing the preference of parties to go 
to Worcester to do the very business, a portion of which they 
could have done at their own doors. 

Does this look as if there was a state of suffering in this 
respect in these towns, such as to call for the creation of a 
new Probate Court, and a new County ? 

And in this connexion, let me suggest a reason why people 
will always be better accommodated at the public oflices in 
a large than in -a small county. There is business enough to 
engage the entire attention of the officers, and they are always 
found at their offices, — whereas, when the compensation is but 
partly enough to support them, they are, of necessity, obliged 
to divide their attention between their duties, at the expense of 
each. 

A point is made by the Petitioners on the ground of having 
to send their deeds so far for record. 

We have heard the practical operation of this. Agencies 
exist in almost every town, by which they can be sent, at the 
simple cost o( postage, and often for nothing, and in mosttowns 
are expresses going and coming every day, whose utmost 
charge would be 25 cents for each deed. 

In the first place, from how many towns could this be more 
cheaply or easily done, if the Registry were in Fitchburg ? 

In the second place, would the difference in the total num- 
ber by the year (2875 last year,) be an occasion for cutting up 
the County? 



36 

It is urged, I know not exactly whether as an evil or not, 
that there has been "a stampede of Lawyers" from these 18 
towns to "Worcester. 

Our answer is, ist, — The " stampede " consisted of tivo. 

2d. That lawyers locate themselves where they are most 
accessible to their clients ; and that it is often cheaper and 
easier for a client to go by railroad 20 miles to Worcester, than 
to the town next adjoining him. 

That the same effect is being produced in Fitchburg, the 
Committee may already have concluded, from the number of 
the profession from that place that have appeared either as 
witnesses or counsel in this case, and that neither in number 
or talent of their lawyers, has Fitchburg any occasion to be 
jealous of Worcester, or any place short of the metropolis. 

And lastly, that counties are not usually cut up and altered 
merely for the accommodation of the legal profession. 

When the Legislature were asked to abolish Concord as a 
shire town, a few years ago, they refused, although it appeared 
upon the hearing, that more than half the actions upon the 
whole docket were commenced by Lowell lawyers, who de- 
sired the change to be made. 

It is said County Conventions are held in Worcester. 

So far from this being evidence for a division of the county, 
it seems to me the reverse. 

It is a case where the people do as they choose, and are not 
compelled by any process of court, and they go there as the 
proper centre of travel and business, and the most accessible 
point for all parties. 

Is it proposed that the Legislatiu-e shall force the people to 
go somewhere else, and hold voluntary conventions ? 

But it is made a great matter of complaint that of $50,000, 
land damages for roads, only $7000 were paid in these 18 towns. 

The mere amount of damages is not a test of the length 
or necessity of the roads located. 

No roads have been granted but upon petition, — nor until a 
full notice and opportunity to be heard, and make objections if 
any body had any. If the public generally have called for 
roads towards Worcester, it was not to accommodate litigants 



37 

and their witnesses alone, but the general business of the 
County, and can be no cause for dividing it. 

The only complaint I have heard made is, not that too many 
roads were made, but that one from Princeton through West- 
minster, towards Fitchburg, was not granted after being op- 
posed by the inhabitants of two of these towns, as unneces- 
sary and uncalled for. And Mr. Mansur did intimate that a 
road from Hubbardston, over the summit to Westminster 
should be laid out, though we hear of no petition for it, and 
those who know the route speak of it as an impracticable one. 

Suppose the changing the county lines could force busi- 
ness into new channels, which we do not admit, will the Legis- 
lature exercise " an act of government " to accomplish such a 
purpose? Why should they? 

This forcing of business, if at all, is to be by creating a new 
Board of Commissioners to carry out new lines of highways, 
and many of them directly across the usual course of such 
ways, which has hitherto been adopted. 

And is this question of being taxed for all this, a matter 
which is not to weigh in determining the main question? 

Shall the people be denied the privilege of voting whether 
they will be taxed or not, to force trade and business towards 
Fitchburg ? 

Our fathers heard of " acts of government " when they were 
'told they must go to the Mother Country for their markets 
and their place of business. But they did not hesitate to re- 
pudiate such an "act of government" the first opportunity 
that offered for the movement. 

Another reason urged by the Petitioners, and set forth in so 
many terms in " the statistics " they have circulated so widely, 
is, that "the expenses of a small county are less in proportion 
either to population or valuation than the costs of supporting a 
large oneP And this is held out as an inducement to those 
heretofore opposed, to favor the creation of a new and smaller 
county than Worcester. 

Now, in fact, I am altogether mistaken in the computations 
I have had made ; or, like so many others of the Petitioner's 
positions and assumptions, this is not sustained by the proof. 



38 



These computations are in the case as a part of the evidence 
based upon the county taxes granted in 1850 and 1854, which 
were accidentally selected and averaged upon the valuation 
and population of the various counties, except Nantucket. 

And the result is that upon valuation, in 1850, Dukes, 
Bristol^ Berkshire, Franklin and Hampden, were all taxed 
higher for county charges than Worcester. And in 1854, 
Dukes, Norfolk, Hampden and Hampshire were all above 
Worcester, Bristol was the same as Worcester, and Franklin 
stood 1.07 to Worcester 1.08. 

Upon Population in 1850, Dukes, Bristol, Norfolk, Franklin 
and Hampden were all higher than Worcester. 

In 1854, Dukes, Hampden, Hampshire and Norfolk were all 
higher llian Worcester, and Bristol stood the same as Worces- 
ter. And what is more, we do not believe these counties have 
so good roads, so well regulated a prison and house of correc- 
tion as Worcester, nor any better county accommodations of 
any kind. 

These statistics confirm the judgment of Mr Murdock and 
other witnesses, who expressed themselves opposed to the 
division, because they apprehended that their expenses in a 
new, small county, would be higher than in an old and large 
and wealthy one. 

From the whole course of the hearing, from the resolute 
resistance to submitting the question to the very people who 
are said to be the sufferers, is it too much to deny that the 
measure is one designed to build up Fitchburg? 

The matter of courts and county officers to be located there 
is but a secondary interest. The measure goes deeper — to 
change the present current of business and direct it towards 
Fitchburg by new highways and the creation of new business 
relations. 

The movement originated there, and it is from there that it 
still derives its chief if not its only aid. 

Fitchburg has a perfect right to seek her own aggrandise- 
ment, and we complain not of this. But it shows the real 
spring that gives impulse to what claims the dignity of a 
popular measure. 



In no other town was there a spontaneous movement in 
this direction. And while we are told that the 34,000 people 
in these 18 towns are suffering so much, what town but 
Fitchburg now takes a single step for relief? 

From what other town do emissaries go out to stir up and 
excite the people of these suffering' toivns ? 

What other town raises money to employ people to circu- 
late petitions to pay for counsel and witnesses ? 

And of the 3473 petitioners this very year, Fitchburg fur- 
nishes 1125. 

What other town has offered a bribe for the boon of a new 
shire, and of being the shire town ? Col. 'Doi/ tells you, that, 
when obtaining petitions, he offered the Bill by which Fitch- 
burg was to pay $25,000, in one hand, and Mr. Mansur's 
statistics in the other. 

Mr. Simonds, of Temple^pn, expressed a doubt whether even 
he, who had always petitioned, should be in favor of the 
division, if this $25,000 was not to be paid. 

Maj. Hawcs said seven-eighths of the opposition was on 
the score of expense, and the $25,000 relieves this to a great 
extent. 

So it is through the whole. 

The Petitioners undertake to explain and soften down this 
palpable bid for the shire town, as a thing in market, by the 
testimony of witnesses that the saving to Fitchburg in extra 
travel by being made a shire town, would be equal to $1500 
a year. 

I have attempted to see how far this will be true ; but 
from the evidence we have, I am compelled to believe, that 
even in this, the Petitioners are again in a great error. 

Let us see how the account will stand. 

She had 485 deeds last year to send to the Register; 20 
attachments of real estate, and 18 administrations. Suppose 
we add three times as many guardianships, probate accounts, 
&c., and call them 54, — which the Register testilies would be 
a large allotvance. 

In 1850, there were 1258 actions on the docket. Suppose 
we assign one-fourth of these to the 18 towns — 314, and 



40 



apportion these to the number of voters, Fitchburg would have 
about 40 ; the difference in travel being to the parties the dif- 
ference between 33 and 165 — or 1.32, making for both parties 
2.64 X by 40— $105.60. 

Say. then — 
For sending deeds, 25 cents each, - - - $120 
" attachments, $1 each, - - 20 

Probate matters, 72 travels each way, twice a year, 216 
80 parties in court, 1.32 each, (though this is trav- 
elled, if at all, by a few lawyers,) say, - 106 

$462 

I add nothing for criminal business, as that is a charge upon 
the State, or the whole County. 

And these cover, one would think, calculating upon the 
statistics in the case, a pretty liberal allowance for the extra 
travel in respect to court matters to be saved to the town of 
Fitchburg by becoming a shire xown. And we should only 
have to add the travel of witnesses, which, at $2 each, may 
be $100 in a year, if you please, — and not swell the extra 
travel of Fitchburg to any where nigh half the amount at 
which then- witnesses conjectured it to be. 

I come now to the last, and with many, the most influential 
consideration, which has been urged by the Petitioners for 
granting their demand ; and that is, that it would be repeated 
again and again till it ivas accomplished. 

We hear it spoken of as " inevitable ; " and we find such 
men as Mr. Fletcher yielding his own judgment to the appre- 
hension that this wearisome process of resisting the demands 
of the Petitioners will have to be abandoned by and by from 
mere exhaustion on the part of the remonstrants. 

We find this determination of clearing everybody from " the 
track" who should oppose them, set forth in the very first 
address issued by the Fitchburg Committee, Jan. 6, 1851. 

And the Committee of the Legislature, in 1853, seem to 
have regarded it as an important consideration that at some 
future time the County must be divided. «» 

Now we protest against this doctrine. 

First, because, from all the evidence before the Committee, 



41 

the necessities, if any exist, for such a division, will become 
less hereafter^ instead of greater ; and if there is not sufficient 
cause noiv, there is no evidence that there ever will be for gen- 
erations yet to come. 

And second, because such a doctrine is subversive of the 
rights of other parties, and turns these hearings before the 
Legislature into mockery. 

It is worse than idle for the Legislature, time after time, to 
hear parties and decide upon the merits of their cases, if they 
are to be wearied out and compelled, to decide against their 
own convictions, by the obstinacy or pertinacity of an inter- 
ested party. It is simply saying, whoever has the most ability 
of means and stubbornness of will, can in all cases get, in the 
end, just what he asks for of the Legislature, let whose rights 
be trampled upon that may be. 

Here is a case where there are two parties, one of which has 
rights as well as the other. And after a full and fair hearing 
and determination of their claims, the people of the other 
towns have a right to be left in peace. 

If there is no other way of doing this, it is a sufficient reason, 
of itself, why the matter should be submitted to the people, to 
declare their wishes on the question, — not for the purpose of 
hindering the right of petition, for that we accord to the fullest 
extent, but to satisfy the Petitioners themselves that they are 
pressing an unfounded and unreasonable claim. 

What would be thought of a court or jury who should take 
one man's estate and give it to another, upon no better ground 
than because he threatened to keep suing till he wearied out 
the court and the rightful owner ? 

If Petitioners have made out a case that shows that their 
petition should be granted now^ grant it ; otherwise, let the 
parties go in peace and stand as they are till they can make 
out clearly that a change should be made. 

If we were to stop here, and take the Petitioners' own case 
with our explanations, without saying a word as to the weighty 
objections which are shown, on the other hand, to exist to the 
measure, is there not at least enough to call for a submission 
of the question to the people ? 
6 



42 



Suppose it were left merely doubtful whether there was that 
loss and inconvenience suffered by the people of those towns 
which the Petitioners represent ; can there be so sure, so direct, 
so convenient a mode of determining- the question, as to put it 
to the very people themselves, who, if anybody, are to be 
relieved and redressed ? 

The Petitioners themselves, though they seem to advocate 
the exercise of sovereign power now, in an " act of govern- 
ment," rather than a regard for the wishes of the people, seem 
to have felt, that in making out their case, they ought to show 
something like a public sentiment in its favor ; and they ac- 
cordingly introduce several witnesses to show what the public 
sentiment is. 

We ask you to lay this out the case for two persons ; first, 
if public sentiment is to be regarded, why not let the people 
declare it directly, instead of taking it hearsay and second- 
hand? 

In the next place, we do not think these witnesses have giv- 
en us any thing like the true public sentiment. 

They tell us of conversations they have had with individuals 
in cars and hotels. But we all know how often " the wish is 
father of the thought, " and if a man did not see fit to openly 
oppose the zeal of Col. Crocker or Col. Phillips, how ready 
they would be to infer that he was in favor of what they had so 
much at heart. 

Col. Phillips testifies as to the condition of the County being 
a general subject of complaint of Jurors and witnesses during a 
long time. " " I believe I have got at the public sentiment of 
those who have practical experience. " 

Now we have evidence that the reverse is true as to a large 
proportion of the Jurors who have served since 1850, and even 
of Jurors who are in favor of the division — but not because of 
complaint in respect of the law business. And witness after 
witness who have attended court themselves, have testified they 
have heard no such complaint. 

Petitioners have attempted to show changes of opinion in favor 
of the division of the County, and the names of Mr. Fletcher 
and Mr. Tyler are mentioned. 



But Mr. Fletcher has himself explained the ground on which 
he has changed his opinion. And Mr. Tyler, though called, did 
not throw light upon the sudden alteration of his views, after 
signing the Petition in favor of that of Artemas Lee and others. 

But the result of the 1st Convention at Fitchburg told what 
the public feeling of that part of the county was. 

The report of the majority of the Convention in 1854, clearly 
admits that the people are against it, and only recommend the 
measure as " an act of government, the propriety of which the 
Legislature was peculiarly the judge. " 

Here then we resume the ground on which we first stood 
when this case was opened — the ground on which more than 
4,300 petitioners rest it, that this whole question should be 
submitted to the people ; and although the people of the entire 
county have feelings and interests involved, it is only to the 
people of these towns that it is asked to submit it. 

And are the grounds upon which the Petitioners resist a 
proposition so reasonable, sufficient and satisfactory to your 
minds ? 

Is it not because such a step would settle the question 
against them, so that they can no longer have a face to perse- 
vere, and show that Mr. Fletcher was mistaken in the grounds 
on which he changed his opinion ; " that he had seen a deter- 
mination in the north part of the county to divide, and if it 
was to take place, it had better take place now than later. " 

Let us see what some of these reasons as stated by the open- 
ing counsel for the Petitioners are ? 

I took down the language of Mr. Mansur, as .well as I could 
upon this point. 

" The people will not be left to act upon their own judgment. 
Influences will be brought to bear from outside of the terri- 
tory. " And then allusion was made to the fact that the city 
of Worcester had raised money to oppose it. 

Again. " Every man, ambitious of office, who takes part in 
this measure, is proscribed." 

Another. " We have but few rich men. But in the north- 
west part of the county, we have some always opposed to this 
— they may be ambitious. There may be another reason. If 



44 



you have such a docket 40 miles off, might it not prevent peo- 
ple asserting their rights, and these may be the reasons why 
rich men will be opposed to the change. " 

Thirdly, " We canH have a fair reference to ilie people — influ- 
ences will be brought to bear upon the people that they cannot act 
freely. " 

Now that this was not intended as a mere flourish of rhet- 
oric, witnesses were enquired of and expressed opinions upon 
the subject, Mr. Goulding, Mr. Wood and others, 

Mr. Wood did indeed " decline answering as to any rich man 
oppressing the poor man, " " I include some who are active. It 
is a mere matter of opinion. " And he added, that he had 
heard another man say, " If another sued him he would make 
it cost him as much as he could. " As if foolish threats like 
that, had not been heard again and again from quarrelsome 
litigants, within hearing of every court-house bell in the Com- 
monwealth. 

I have been more full in stating this part of the Petitioners' 
answer, because it involves a grave charge, which I be- 
lieve to be as unjust and ungenerous an imputation as ever 
was made upon an honorable, highminded, intelligent commu- 
nity. 

Thank God, these towns are yet a part of my native county, 
and I have a right, in their name to repel the insinuation as 
the mere creation of a groundless jealousy, as I believe it to be. 
It is like that bugbear of " Worcester influence'''' of which 
we hear so much from the Petitioners. 

Who are the men and where do they live who thus oppress 
the poor? 

Does one pretend to believe that if there were men suspect- 
ed, even, of habitually grinding down the poor and robbing 
them by refusing to pay their honest debts, or using their 
wealth to cheat and oppress their fellow-citizens, the whole 
community would keep their peace ? Nay more, that when 
that community had it put into their power by a simple vote 
to disarm the oppressor of his power, that they would quail 
from fear, in doing it ? 

I can scarcely treat the suggestion with patience. I know 



4B 



the men of North Worcester better than to tolerate such a 
thought for a moment. 

It was but a few years since I saw some of the leading men 
of Athol volunteer to come down to Worcester to rescue a 
poor friendless black boy from a master's power ; and is it to 
be charged that such men, and those who drew in hatred of 
oppression with their mother's milk, may not be trusted to 
decide whether they themselves and their own kindred and 
neighbors are the victims of oppression of some purse-proud 
tyrant ? 

They talk about proscription, of ambitious men. Who is 
to proscribe them but the very men whom they are relieving 
by their efforts to create a new county ? And what sort of 
proscription is that which instead of giving here and there an 
ambitious man, in one of these towns, a county office, pours 
into the lap of eager expectants the scores of offices and 
places which a new county is certain to open to hungry office 
seekers ? • 

I do not mean to charge improper motives upon any one. 
But if this suggestion of the Petitioners as to ambitious men 
has any force, I can easily see that the coming office of Sheriff 
may dazzle the eye of one, of Judge of Probate another, of 
Clerk or Register a third, and so on through the whole alpha- 
bet of aspirants for these honors of a new county. 

It is the ambitious men that are against us — not for us. 

They tell us of influences " from outside the territory," and 
they couple Worcester with this charge. 

They have introduced evidence in order to show that Wor- 
cester has had wishes and expressed opinions upon the subject 
of this petition, and they have moused around to see if Wor^ 
cester has not paid somebody something to oppose it. 

Suppose she has, had she no right to ? If she has no right 
to speak or be heard upon it, why notify her in common with 
the county to be here at all ? 

Why not disfranchise her citizens at once, and put an inter- 
dict, like a Popish Bull of excommunication upon her, even 
offering up a prayer to be spared the sacrifice ? 

Has she done any thing improper? Has she offered the 



46 

bribe of a single sixpence to any body or any community to 
act with her ? 

Did she ever try to tempt Col. Day, or Mr. Fletcher, or Col. 
Crocker, though they have so often been there ? They all 
acquit her of that, and Col. Crocker had the magnanimity to 
say that Col. Lincoln who was perhaps the most influential of 
aU her citizens against this division while he lived, had done 
" nothing but what was fair and honorable," and every body 
who knew that true and strong man, knew he could not act 
otherwise than honorably. 

Has Worcester, in short, done a single thing to prevent the 
division, which Fitchburg has not done to promote it ? 

One thing at least is true, what she has done she has done 
openly and without coyicealment. 

What has she in fact done ? 

In consequence of the public meeting and address at Fitch- 
burg, in December 1850, there was a meeting and address in 
Worcester, in March 1851. And that address we have produc- 
ed. Is not that as proper as to send emissaries and lecturers 
into other towns to stir up the public mind which had hither- 
to been quiet and content, or hire agents to circulate petitions 
in aU the towns and induce persons to subscribe them who 
would not otherwise have thought of a division ? 

She raised money to employ counsel and to defray the ex- 
pense of opposing the division. 

How else could she appear? And has not Fitchburg expend- 
ed larger sums every year for the last four years for carrying 
the measure through$ — 1,000 this very year? 

Her press has been honorable, open and consistent on this 
point. The articles which we have laid on your table all 
maintain the same ground — let the people settle this question, 
they are competent to judge, if they ivish to dissolve their connexion 
with us — sorry as we should be, we will throw no obstacle in the 
toay ; and that doctrine we still maintain. 

But out of the hundreds of newspapers that must have been 
published since this controversy began, the Petitioners have 
produced one, and read it with some little air of triumph. 

I understood the counsel, the article was from the "Journal," 



47 



and think I heard as he read it something about " Worcester" 
and its "Governors." Now I never happened to see the ar- 
ticle, nor did I know the then editor. But I had good reason 
to suppose "Worcester Governors" were not in the best odor 
with him. Nor do I see how Worcester is to be made res- 
ponsible at all for the article. The editor, we are told, did 
not live there, and soon after writing that article, if he did 
write it, he found it convenient to be absent in parts unknown. 

But, as far as I caught expressions from the article, so far 
from indicating a bad state of feeling on the part of Worcester 
towards Fitchburg and the division of the county, it seems to 
indicate the want of any feeling at all upon the subject. "Where 
is Worcester?" "It is time for her to move." "Let Worcester 
begin to move." As if the people were, as many of them I 
doubt not actually were, in a state of apathy and indifference 
upon the subject, from which they should be roused. 

In his argument the last year, the counsel for the Petitioners 
favored the committee with a page from an Agricultural ad- 
dress of Gov. Lincoln, in 1819, — speaking in terms of eulogy 
of the magnitude and prosperous condition of Worcester 
County. 

If that was treasonable, it has been open to the pubUc gaze 
for 35 years, and it has never been thought a crime tiU this 
controversy arose, to speak well of so noble a body politic as 
the old county of Worcester. 

And to my poor comprehension it is quite as patriotic to 
address the generous pride of the high minded, intelligent 
yeomanry of that county, as to stand up before the committee 
of the legislature and deny to them sufficient intelligence or" 
honesty or independence to know their own interests, or to 
dare to declare their own wills. 

But, Sir, Worcester needs no apology or defence on my part. 

That she would regret to see this old county dissevered is 
true. That she has openly and at all times, expressed herself 
opposed to it, is equally true. But that there is evidence here 
that she has ever done a dishonorable, or improper, or question- 
able act in relation to it, is not true. 

She makes no war upon Fitchburg or her citizens. Her 



48 

votes helped to elect the worthy senator from that town who 
presented this very petition which she opposes. And fortunate- 
ly her prosperity is too firmly based to be affected by with- 
drawing a few boarders in court weeks from her taverns and 
boarding houses. 

Her prosperity rests upon the intelligence, enterprise, sldll 
and industry of her mechanical, manufacturing and business 
population, and the facilities they enjoy through her railroads, 
and her being what she always will be, the centre of a large 
and densely populated region. 

I have seen her grow up within the last 26 years, from 4 to 
almost 24,000 people, not from the board bills of a few suit- 
ors, or lawyers, or jurors, or witnesses, but from the well di- 
rected, well rewarded labor and ingenuity of her multifarious 
industry. 

She would mourn to have you sever her from her old asso- 
ciations. But you will not thereby annihilate the great ele- 
ments of her prosperity and success. 

But to return to the question of the people being competent 
to act upon this matter, the Petitioners seem to me to be a 
little inconsistent with themselves. While at one time they 
urge these " influences" as so controlling that the people can- 
not act freely — at another they tell us and try to prove it, that 
the public sentiment in these towns is constantly growing 
stronger, and is openly expressed in cars, hotels and other pub- 
lic places in favor of it. 

We however deny any such influence. 

We asked witness after witness whom the Petitioners pro- 
duced, if they knew of any thing in their own towns to prevent 
the people acting freely and intelligently on the question if 
submitted to them, and no one pretended to be cognizant of 
such a fact. 

If the people of these towns are not capable and independ- 
ent enough to know their own interests and provide for their 
own protection and security, they are not Jit to be trusted to 
form a county hy themselves. 

But it is not so. And I dismiss this part of the subject by 
repeating what I know, that there is not a more intelligent, 



49 

high minded reliable people in all our land than those who 
constitute those 18 towns. 

In this connection I cannot omit to notice and regret the 
readiness with which the Petitioners suspect and intimate 
charges oi fraud. Nor should I omit to remind you how sig- 
nally the proof of such a charge has failed. 

The main attempt to charge this, relates to what is called 
the Petition " in aid of that of Artemas Lee and others." 

They tried to show that a boy in Mr. Colburn's store de- 
ceived Maj. Hawes in respect to it. But when it appeared 
that Maj. Hawes, one of the most intelligent men in Leomin- 
ster read it, and that it speaks for itself, that was abandoned. 

The effort to show the same thing by Mr. Merritt "Wood, 
that persons told him they " signed for a division to be left 
to the people," and by Mr. Simonds that Col. Lee when he 
presented the petition read it to him and explained that it was 
" a preamble setting forth the state of things as they had been 
acted here," were fully and completely met by producing the 
petitions which confirmed the construction which was given 
to those papers. 

So the pretence of misrepresentation by Mr. Partridge in 
respect to the same petition is denied by him and certified to 
be untrue hy the persons said to have been misled. And there is 
something absurd in the idea of his publicly reading the peti- 
tion in the Depot in the hearing of all, and at the same time, 
in presence of Col. Day, the witness produced by the Peti- 
tioners, misstating what he had just read, and maintaining it 
after a discussion with Col. Day. 

The petition speaks for itself, and Mr. Simonds is still in 
favor of having the question go to the people if the $25,000 
pledge of Fitchburg can go with it ; but otherwise he has 
doubts whether he would himself go for the division at all. 

Having thus considered the objections made by the Peti- 
tioners to submitting this whole question to the people, let me 
call your attention to some of the grounds upon which we con- 
tend that it is a proper and expedient course. 

In the first place, it is consistent with, and in conformity toj 
7 



50 

the spirit of the Constitution, in respect to creating towns into 
cities. (2d Amendment.) 

This cannot be done, though a mere change in the govern- 
ment and organization of the same corporation, without being 
submitted to the people of the town. 

Here it is proposed not only to change the government of 
these towns as parts of a county organization, but to change 
the corporate body itself — throwing them into new relations 
and severing old ones — a much stronger reason for consulting 
the wishes of the people, than whether a Mayor and Aldermen 
or a Board of Selectmen shall have charge of the municipal 
and prudential concerns of the body politic. 

In the next place, it is consistent with a long com-se of legis- 
lation. 

In 1821, the change in the Boston courts was submitted to 
the people of the city. (1821, c. 109.) 

So the adoption of the Superior Court, in 1842, I think. 
In 16 cases, I believe, the question of establishing as many 
Police Courts has been submitted to the people of the respec- 
tive towns. 

In 1828, the very measure now proposed, was adopted by 
the Legislature, except that the question was submitted to 
the people of the whole county, instead of the towns to be 
set off. 

The propriety of such a submission to the people, is expressly 
recognized by our Supreme Court, in 3 Pick. Rep. 51 1. 

Every change in city charters are submitted to the vote of 
the people of the cities. Among those, the acts of 1854, c. 448 
and 449, in relation to Boston. The question of taking Charles- 
town from one county and making it a part of another, the 
very last winter, (1854, c. 433,) was submitted not only to 
Charlestown, whether they would go to join Suffolk, but to 
Boston, whether she would assent to have them come. 

So the question as to the removal of the court house in 
Berkshire last winter was sent to the people of the county. 

And then we have a class of laws as to snipe, woodcock? 
pickerel, &c., which towns have, by general law, the power to 
suspend by vote. R. S. c. 53 & 5b. 



51 



And a bill to divide the County, and requiring Fitchburg to 
contribute $25,000, as is proposed, cannot he passed without 
virtually/ submitting to the people of Fitchburg- to determine by 
their vote, whether the law shall take effect or not, for that is to 
depend upon whether thej will raise the |25,000 or not. 

And we ask, upon what principle of equity or justice, Fitch- 
burg shall have the power and right to say by vote, whether she 
wishes the 18 towns to come to her, while you deny to the 18 
towns all power of saj'ing whether they wish to go to her 
or not. 

The propriety of such a submission of this question to the 
people is recognized by the people of Fitchburg, in their first 
address, when we may suppose they acted from the first 
plain obvious instincts and common sense of what was right. 

Such a measure would be in accordance with the growing 
sentiment of Massachusetts. 

The time has gone by when " acts of government " are to 
supercede the wishes of the people on subjects within their 
capacity, and by which they are personally and intimately 
affected. 

"We already elect our County Commissioners, and doubtless 
soon shall, our sheriffs and various other officers, whose appoint- 
ment has hitherto been an " act of government " on the part of 
the executive. Nor are the examples of Franklin and Hamp- 
den, as some have represented, against us. 

"When Franklin was made a County, every town within its 
limits but three petitioned for it through their agents, and there- 
fore there was no occasion to go to the people to know if they 
desired the measure. 

In the case of Hampden, only 5 towns within that territory 
opposed the measure. So that in both these cases the Legis- 
lature did but carry out the express wishes of the people of 
those counties. 

And surely if these 18 towns are competent and free to 
choose their agents to represent them here, and in the Legis- 
lature, and wiU be competent to elect the county officers, who 
will be eligible, if the new county is created — ^they are compe- 
tent, and ought to be permitted to express their judgment in 



52 



the first place, whether their peace, and interest, and prosperity 
will be, as it is contended is to be the result, promoted by the 
creation of the county prayed for. 

A refusal thus to submit the question involves the conclusion 
either — 

1st. That they are not as competent to judge whether they 
wish to go to Fitchburg, as Fitchburg is whether she wishes 
them to come to her. 

Or, 2d. They are under such restraint, from fear or other 
causes, as not to be able to act freely. 

Or, 3d. That " government " is above and beyond the people, 
like the power of an autocrat, which does not emanate from the 
people, and is not, as a representative power, responsible to 
them ; and that the doctrine of the 5th article of the Declaration 
of Rights has been abrogated, or become obsolete, which speaks 
of the people being the source of power, to whom Legislative 
and other officers of government are accountable. 

Shall a matter like regulating the shooting of snipes or catch- 
ing of pickerel be granted to the people as a boon, and the priv- 
ilege be solemnly denied them of judging whether their rights, 
their associations and their relations, as members of a great and 
honored County, shall be surrendered and sacrificed or not, 
■when no public exigency, beyond their own wants, can require 
the sacrifice? 

Let me present this in another aspect. 

Is not the supposed wishes of the people of these towns in 
effect the onl^ ground on which a division is asked for or could 
be sustained? 

Suppose a member of the house had risen in his place and 
stated and proved every thing that has here been attempted, 
as to the inconvenience of courts, &c., and had moved to set 
off these 18 and 5 towns into a County, before any body living 
within them asked for the change, would the measure have 
been sustained for a moment ? Would it not have been said, 
these people know their own interests best, why thrust a doubt- 
ful favor upon them ? 

If then, in such a case, the supposed wishes of the people 
would be a guide for the Legislature, why should they not 



have the same right and privilege to express these wishes, and 
thereby settle the question beyond dispute ? 

If after all these considerations, the Committee should decide 
against the proposition to submit the matter to' the people 
of the towns interested, and if they shall feel bound to go into 
the merits of the case in order to decide it " as an act of gov- 
ernment," we are called upon to oifer, as briefly as I can, some 
of the reasons why the prayer of the petition ought not to be 
granted. For the Committee will observe that I have not 
thus far brought forward the objections on our part, but have 
been examining how the case stood upon the points made by 
the Petitioners themselves. 

In doing this, however, we do not waive the position that 
the burden of showing that a sufficient cause for the change is 
on the Petitioners. 

Nor do we admit that they have shown any thing like such 
a cause, or have made out even a prima facie case for the 
granting of their petition. 

In the next place, unless the Petitioners succeed in showing 
that both Middlesex and Worcester ought to be divided, there is 
no pretence that Worcester should be ; — the whole have thus far 
gone together. Strike out the 5 towns, or even Groton, and 
Fitchburg ceases to be anything like a central point ; and the 
whole character of the original proposition will be essentially 
changed. 

And what is most remarkable, the Petitioners seek to make 
out an exigency for dividing Worcester, by adding 5 towns 
from Middlesex, although their petition itself had not the 
hardihood to allege that either of these towns are suffering 
inconvenience as they now are. 

In the first place, the people of those toivns do not wish the 
change. If they did, they could easily have said so, by signing 
some of the petitions, which have been circulated everywhere, 
and at no little expense. 

The subject has not been a new one, on which they have 
not had an opportunity to form a judgment. It has been for 
years before the Legislature and the people ; and agents and 
lecturers and arguments have been circulated and employed 



54 



among the inhabitants of these towns to enlighten them upon 
the subject of all their giievances — if they have any. 

And what is the result ? — 3473 Petitioners ask for the change ; 
only a little'more than 1 in 3 of the number of voters, although 
the list of the Petitioners embrace some who are said not to 
be legal voters. 

But we do not rest here. It was not urged last year 
because the people wanted it, but because it was a salutary 
" act of government^ 

And this year, we have brought an overwhelming amount 
of evidence to show that the people not only do not want the 
change, but are opposed and averse to it, upon thorough, 
deliberate, well-considered conviction. 

And not only so, but the scheme, at this moment, has much less 
favor and support among" the people, than the first year it was 
broached. 

The truth is, the people have looked into it themselves, and 
seen what its bearing is to be ; that, though it may benefit a 
single town or two, — Fitchburg, in its growth, Lunenburg, in 
its market, — and possibly a few to whom the new county 
offices are to be distributed, and a few litigant parties and 
parties having business at the public offices, — yet that the 
people will neither get better, nor speedier, nor cheaper justice 
by the change ; while they will entail upon themselves and 
then- children after them a burden of taxation which they 
cannot escape. 

Let us see how the evidence stands upon the present and 
former wishes of the people upon the subject. 

In 1851, there were 4505 petitioners ; now, 3262, aU told, 
including 1125 from Fitchburg, — a loss of 1243, although the 
population must have increased thousands in the last four 
years. 

AtJiol — at first, says Mr. Hill, 10 to 1 for it, has a majority 
against it, and instead of 349, now has only 249 petitioners 
for it ; one of the Jurors from the town, who was once for it, 
is now opposed. 

Royalston — the most to be favored, if any one, in 1853, voted 
114 against, to 14 for; and this year, a vote in town meeting 



55 



to oppose, and no opposition made to the vote ; every Juror 
but one opposed. 

PhiUipston — in town meeting, chose an agent to oppose ; 
witness says general opinion decidedly opposed ; 6 out of 8 
Jurors opposed. 

Winchendon — 12 out of 15 Jm-ors opposed ; in 1851, 187 
petitioners ; none now for it ; seven-eighths of the people 
opposed. 

Petersham. — Unanimous vote in town meeting to oppose it, 
in February last ; sentiment all opposed. 

Hubbardston. — People decidedly opposed to division ; 15 
Jurors aU opposed; most that signed for it once are now 
opposed. 

Templeton.-^Ahout 303 out of 447 voters signed for a refer- 
ence to the people ; a strong feeling against the division. 

Gardner.'-^Chose agent to oppose, 80 to 7, unless voted for 
by the people ; 1851, 148 for it — ^128 now ; of these 36 not on 
voting list ; of 15 Jurors all but 1 opposed — and he not in 
favor. 

Westminster. — In 1854, in town meeting, after full discussion 
and efforts of friends, the vote was 159 against to 80 for ; no 
change in favor since; in 1851, 300 petitioners for ^- now 
203. 

Princeton'. — The general desire of town against it ; 78 peti- 
tioners in north-east corner of town, out of 308 voters. 

Leominster — only 5 miles from Fitchburg, 20 from Wor- 
cester — in 1851, 322 petitioners for division ; now, 182 ; town 
once voted against it ; no changes of opinion for it known, 
but one, — offset to that, Mr. Litchfield, o. petitioner for, is now 
opposed. 

Ijunenburg. — In favor ; not because of court accommodation, 
but because of its supposed effect in creating a market. 

Sterling — midway between Fitchburg and Worcester-^— pub- 
lic sentiment against it ; once voted in town meeting generally 
against it; only 3 or 4 votes for it; 15 out of 18 Jurors op-, 
posed; 2 signed both petitions. 

Lancaster — town meeting — often much discussion ; chose 
agent to oppose; 75 to 4; 71 petitioners,, all in north part of 



56 



Lancaster, in hope of being joined to Shirley, — not on account 
of inconvenience as to courts ; of 23 Jurors, all but 3 opposed, 
and those 3 not because of any difficulty as to courts ; 76 
petitioners in 1851 ; 71 now, and from same quarter of 
town. 

Harvard — voted 67 to 3 against the division ; 50 petitioners 
in 1851; 32 now; sentiment strongly against it; 10 Jurors 
opposed ; 1 in favor. 

Bolton. — Sentiment entirely against it ; vote of town 143 
to 3 against it ; every Juror opposed. 

I have thus run over the substance of the testimony of wit- 
nesses as to 16 of the 18 towns, and we find 15 of the number 
opposed to the change. Witnesses have stated freely their 
reasons for this opposition, and so strong are- they, that in some 
towns all but an unanimous sentiment is entertained against 
it. And in these witnesses, the Committee had a chance to see 
and judge for themselves of the intelligence, independence and 
capacity to form their own opinions, of the people of these 18 
towns. 

And will you force these towns into an union that is repug- 
nant to their wishes, their interests and their affections ? 

Justice and fair dealing, as well as the common rights of 
citizens and freemen forbid the bans I 

And if we look into the evidence before us, we shall find 
these towns fully sustained in their opposition, by facts. 

1st. On the score of additional expense, present and future, 
occasioned by creating a new county, disproportioned, alto- 
gether, to any possible general benefit. 

1st. In erecting public buildings. 

The petitioners represent this expense at some ^25,000 or 
$30,000, of which it is said Fitchburg will pay $25,000 as a 
bonus. 

In the first place, any calculations made upon the character 
and cost of such buildings 25 or 30 years ago, is no test of 
what will be required now. Public taste and sentiment de- 
mand better and more costly buildings, and the cost of erecting 
even the same character of buildings has been greatly en- 
hanced. Som;^' of the witnesses say it has doubled in 30 or 



40 years. 



57 



There will be a Court House with offices, and if they mean 
to have their records safe — fire proof offices — a Jail and House 
of Correction with shops, if the convicts are to be kept em- 
ployed, and is it not idle to talk of doing all this, buying lands, 
constructing yards, and furnishing these buildings for 30,000 
dollars ? 

They tell us their Hotel in Fitchburg cost over $35,000. 

Lowell started with some $20,000, and it has reached al- 
ready 80,000 with a Jail to be added of 75,000 more. 

Franklin has expended on a Court House and Jail $26,000, 
and has been already authorized by the Legislature to borrow 
$20,000 more for the same purpose. 

The wooden building for a Court House at Concord we are 
told cost from 20 to $25,000, although it has no pretence 
towards having fire proof offices. And you have the estimate 
of the cost of a Jail at Lowell, only one out of the three in 
that county, at $75,000. The Concord Court House was ex- 
clusive of land. 

Hampshire. — The cost of Court House, Jail and House of 
Correction has been over $70,000. The legislative committee 
and Mr. Huntress think the Jail and House of Correction cost 
over $70,000, and still the Court House is insufficient. 

Dedham Jail and House of Correction cost near $100,000. 

If then you intend to give this new county as safe, to say 
nothing of as convenient buildings and accommodations as 
they now have, can you set down the expense of furnishing 
the public buildings at Fitchburg at less than $150,000 in the 
light of the evidence before you ? Our Almshouses were esti- 
mated to cost less than $100,000, and cost $241,758 ; and 
would not the experience of every man who ever built a house, 
pubfic or private, lead him to add to rather than deduct from 
the estimate I have given ? Mr. Huntress has told you that 
the cost will be at least $150,000; and Col. Park, as experi- 
enced as any man in the world in regard to such buildings, 
sets the sum still above that amount. 

We have then to start with, for somebody to pay, a charge 
of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars if this change is 
made. 



58 



Now, how will it be as to the comparative amount of an- 
nual county charges, compared with what are now paid. 

I call these 18 towns one-fourth of the county, though in 
fact their valuation is 25 per cent, of the whole county, while 
their population is 26 per cent. 

County Commissioners are required to publish annually a 
list of the expenses of the county, and we have put in that 
statement for Worcester for 1854, and of its 27 items, I have 
selected some of the leading ones which are of the same na- 
ture as those which will be in the new county, in order to 
approximate the difference between supporting two counties 
and one. 

In the first place there will be a new set of county officers. 

Sheriff. — Ours now has, as appears by a report to the Leg- 
islature, $2,125; Hampden, $911 ; Bristol, $1,076. I call the 
compensation of the Sheriff of the new county, $1,000 

Judge of Probate, same as Bristol, - - . - 500 

Register of Probate, same as Bristol, ... 800 

Clerk of the Court, say same as Assistant now, 1,600 

County Commissioners. — Franklin is $1,625, Hampden, 
$1,630 ; and considering the amount of business in the new 
county, I call that sum $1,700. 

Keeper of Jail and House of Correction ; — call it the same 
as Franklin, $996 ; Crier of Court, say one-third of present, 
$155 ; fuel and lights for Court House and offices, I call two- 
fifths of the present sum, for the same number of offices will 
be to light and warm, and the Com-t will be in session I as- 
sume one-fourth of the time, $2,700; Messenger of Court 
same as Franklin, $300 ; travel of Grand Jury twice, say up- 
on an average by the year, $60.00 — giving us, exclusive of 
blank books. Auditors of Commissioners' accounts. Physician 
to Jail, Overseers of House of Correction, and a great variety 
of other items, an amount of over $10,000 ; and if we call it 
all $15,000, 1 am quite confident it would be below the actual 
sum, without adding a dollar for interest on original outlay or 
repairs of buildings, after examining as I propose to do, the 
additional expense of Jurors in the new over the present 
county. Now, with the exception of what will be saved in the 



59 



sum paid to County Commissioners, and the shortening the 
terms of the Court somewhat, all this is a new charge, forever 
to be sustained by somebody. 

It may be said that a part of it will be by the State. That 
is true, and it is equally true that this does not show any thing 
like the total additional expense, which will be occasioned by 
the creation of a new county. 

Take the matter of travel and attendance of Jurors alone, of 
which so much wiU fall directly upon the people of the county. 

The present expense of these is |6225, of which these 18 
towns pay J, or $1556. 

In the new county they will have 5 terms of the Court of 
Common Pleas, including 2 criminial terms, undoubtedly, and 
two panels of Jurors with 3 or 4 supernumeraries, making 27 
or 28 each term. 

The average in Worcester for years past has been 80. If 
they are to have a term of the Supreme Judicial Court, that 
will make 6 terms in a year, consequently six travels for Jurors. 

I call the average travel from the small towns in the new 
county to Fitchburg 14 miles, as stated by Mr Mansur in his 
opening. 

If we take the average of the days of courts in Hampshire 
Hampden and Franldin, it is I believe 57 per year. But I do 
not believe those towns, unless they change, would be litigious 
enough to average so many days, call it 52. 

We then have for attendance of Jarors $2537. 

For travel, - . - - - 



making a total of $4889 for Jurors alone, of which the 5 towns 
will pay 22 pr cent, leaving the balance $3814 a charge upon 
the 18 towns instead of $1556, what they now pay — increas- 
ing of course with the increasing business of the courts. Be- 
sides these, will be the cost of constructing miles and miles of 
highways, to open communications between Fitchburg and 
these towns in their new relation to each other. 

I leave for others to estimate what the sum total of these ex- 



60 



tra burdens upon the industry of these towns is to be, and 
what part is to fall upon each of their number. 

It corroborates and is corroborated by the computation I 
referred to before, showing that the expenses per dollar and 
per head of a small county are larger than in a large one. 

And what are the people of these towns to get for all this ? 
One in a thousand will save on an average 11 miles once a 
year in the travel of himself and witnesses in attending court. 

The same difference in some 2 or 300 probate causes, and 
the postage or express-man's fee on some 3000 deeds to the 
Registry in a year. 

In this connexion I ought to say a word in respect to the 
action and commission of the County Commissioners with 
this matter of the division of the county. 

Petitioners complain that they oppose it, and incur expenses 
to do so. 

We insist they could do no less. They know what the 
economy of the thing would be — They know what the wishes 
and interests of the people of the county are, and they are 
authorised and required by the Revised Statutes, c. 14, § 31, cl. 
6, " to represent the county" in all such cases. 

For this reason, they were notified to appear here — and they 
had no criterion to guide their action but what they conscien- 
tiously believed the great body of the people whom they 
represented desired to have them do. 

And such has been their course. There is noticing narrow 
or selfish in their policy, nor are they hostile to any of these 
18 towns. 

Not one of the standing board belong to "Worcester ; one 
third of their number resides within the 18 towns. 

And so far from showing any disposition to oppress these 
towns, though this matter has been pending several years, 
though the county has a debt from which as is generally sup- 
posed these 18 towns will escape if set off by themselves, not 
a dollar extra has been added in consequence, to the " county 
estimate," for the purpose of relieving the remainder of the 
county from the debt, by taxing those towns while they yet 
belong to Worcester. 



61 



To do their duty required the expenditure of money. But 
they challenge the most rigid scrutiny into the propriety of the 
act and the reasonableness of the amount. 

And they now wish that the people may themselves have 
an opportunity to say, by theh- vote, whether in opposing this 
division, these very 18 towns do not accord with them in senti- 
ment. 

The fact, however, that after all the excitement and agitation 
upon this subject, the people re-elected these gentlemen, in 1853, 
shows that they have done nothing in this respect to forfeit the 
confidence of the people, in their integiity and fidelity. On the 
contrary, they know, and the people know, they would have 
been recreant in their duty, if they had done any less than 
they have done. 

We repeat then, that we object to the division of the county, 
because it will entail a great and perpetual burden of expense 
upon the inhabitants of the new county. 

In the next place, we object to the division on account of 
the great inconveniences^ to which the people of these 18 towns 
will thereby be subjected. 

The course and channels of their business have become 
established and accommodated to their localities and wants, 
and these cannot be broken up without embarrassment and 
loss. 

Their place of trade — their supply of raw materials and stock 
for their manufactures, and the market for their goods — the 
place of insuring their property, of aiTanging business with 
other parts of the county at a central point, of sending goods 
to New York, or Albany, or Providence, and sometimes to 
Boston, have all been settled and adapted to the convenience of 
other parts of the county by the existing state of things, and 
cannot be broken up except at a great sacrifice. 

Changing the place of holding the courts may not, and pro- 
bably will not, break up these altogether. But the effect 
will be, instead of combining their court with their other 
business, as they do now, and thereby saving half the time 
and expense, they will have to go to one place to do their ^qh- 



62 



eral business, and to an entirely different one to attend courts, 
or settle their Probate accounts, or record their deeds. 

In regard to Bolton, Harvard, Lancaster, Princeton, Hub- 
bardston and Petersham, neither of these can be done with 
nigh the convenience with Fitchburg as with Worcester. And 
whatever goes to Fitchburg must be forced to go there. Nor 
will any conceivable state of things ever make it as easy or 
cheap for these towns to go to Fitchburg as to Worcester. 

On the contrary, when the Gardner road is built, the advan- 
tage in favor of Worcester will be greatly enhanced, so far as 
the whole Northwest part of the present county is concerned. 

When we go into particular inconveniences, the proof holds 
quite as strong. 

Take the matter of titles to estates, the injury can not be 
measured in dollars and cents. 

Every estate in the county is supposed on an average to 
change hands as often as once in thirty years, through the Pro- 
bate office, and thousands change every year, by conveyances 
of one kind or another. 

From these 18 towns alone there were 2875 conveyances 
recorded last year. 

And in at least one quarter of them, as testified by Mr. 
Rogers, examinations of titles are had, and this can be done 
comparatively easily, while the records are all in one place. 

More than this — by arrangements made between the Register 
and gentlemen in every town, deeds can be sent, and often 
examinations made and communications had, easily and cheaply 
with the Registry without a personal attendance. Suppose the 
county divided, conveyances will of course be recorded in the 
new Registry, and soon every one taking a conveyance will 
have to make a search in Worcester and Fitchburg for every 
estate whose title is in question, doubling the expense and 
trouble for at least 700 persons a year from these 18 towns alone. 
The towns from Middlesex will of course suffer the same in- 
convenience. 

So obvious and serious is this difficulty, that Petitioners 
undertake to obviate it by a suggestion of copying the deeds 
of lands in these 18 towns for 20 years. 



6^ 



But every one familiar with conveyancing knows that for 
descriptions of estates and in tracing titles reference is often 
necessary to be had to deeds much older than 20 years. 

Since our first adjournment, I have been called upon to in- 
vestigate the description of an estate in preparing for a trial, 
where we had to go back to deeds given in 1758. 

Another case was where an estate had been held by a 
widow, apparently as her own, 48 years, but it was discovered 
after her death, that she simply owned a right of dower in the 
premises. 

Another, where I recovered an estate for a client as heir to 
an estate in tail, after a conveyance by the tenant near 70 years 
ago, the purchasers in succession supposing themselves, in the 
mean time, to be owners of the estate in fee simple. 

So in the case of mortgages, if the debt is not due or the 
condition not broken, or debt kept alive, the limit of 20 years 
would not quiet the title of a purchaser. 

In the next place, to copy these deeds requires an examina- 
tion of every deed in the office, and the last year there were 
10,000 recorded. 

After they are copied, they must be examined and compared 
by the Register, and the estimate of Mr. Rogers that to do all 
this would require 25 3-4 years, besides 3 years and 161 days 
of the Register's time, is, I believe, below rather than above 
the actual time it would occupy. 

And the estimated cost of $31,707 to do it, at reasonable 
days' pay, is but an additional evidence of the all but impossi- 
bility of the scheme. 

I might speak of the inconveniences of this division to the 
line of towns bordering upon the new and old counties, where 
the citizens of each are liable to be compelled to go into the 
county to which they do not belong, to attend to business in 
court : but that must be obvious to every one. 

Indeed, as we look at it, beyond the trifling saving to a few 
individuals in a year, the division is fraught with evil and mis- 
chief, and nothing else. 

They talk to us of the lawyers leaving the 18 towns to 



64 



come to Worcester ; but dividing the County will not drive 
them back to the towns they came from. 

They tell us of the roads that have been made leading 
towards Worcester. There they are, and there they will 
remain, and a division of the County will not discontinue 
them. 

But, upon this point, let me say, that in no county have the 
roads been more systematically and better laid out and made 
than in Worcester ; and it has been because she is able and 
willing to have such a system of roads, and it is what a poor 
county cannot afford to have. 

K she remains together, these will become less and less 
burdensome every year ; for there will be less and less occasion 
for laying out new highways, and those towns will be reaping 
the benefit of this, instead of being obliged to incur new and 
heavy expenses the moment they are separated. 

If the people are dissatisfied with the Board of Commission- 
ers, they can correct it at the ballot-box, without dividing the 
County. 

Comment has been made upon the style and expense of 
our present County buildings. Dividing the County cannot 
correct any errors of taste or economy, if any have been com- 
mitted. 

But I am far from admitting that there have been these 
errors. 

We have a brick Court House in which our County Com- 
missioners and criminal courts do their business. 

And a granite one, in which are the County offices, and the 
other courts are held ; and these are sufficient for the County 
for scores of years to come. 

Even in the economical character of those buildings, com- 
pared with many other counties, the result is favorable to 
Worcester County. 

Certain purposes were to be answered by their construc- 
tion : — convenience, safety, and a decent regard to appear- 
ance ; and all these have been accomplished. 

Our records there are safe — a matter of more importance 
than can be measured by dollars and cents. 



65 



And in doing this, the Commissioners wisely exercised a 
foresight in providing for the wants of the County for many 
years to come. Tliey were erected for such a County as Wor- 
cester is. The County still owes more than $100,000 for 
these ; and is it just, without some strong public reason, that 
the balance of the County should be left with this heavy debt 
upon its hands ? 

And is it not still more unfair to do all this, in order to 
build up a single other town in the County ? 

Even this purpose, we contend, cannot be answered to any 
thing like the anticipated extent, by this division. You may 
force a part of the court business of the County into a new 
channel ; but you cannot force other business out of the chan- 
nel which it makes for itself 

There is another important objection to dividing the County, 
which affects the balance that remains, in a most serious and 
disastrous manner ; and as guardians of the rights and inter- 
ests of the 95,000 that will be left in the old county, we call 
your attention to this consideration of the case. 

These ninety- five thousand luill chiefly be entirely on one side 
of the shire town. Worcester will be within a few miles of 
the north line of the County. 

This, it is true, will not render the distance to other parts 
greater than it now is. But it destroys all relative accommo- 
dation of the several parts of the County, and leaves to those 
who have thus to travel no corresponding benefit or compen- 
satory considerations. 

So long as they can form a part of a noble body politic, 
like the County of Worcester, and can feel that they share in 
its character, and history, and prosperity, as a whole., and that 
its burdens are to be borne by the whole County, they are 
content to forego the inconvenience of a few miles, more or 
less, to reach the shire town. 

But, once declare that these County ties and associations 
are of no value ; cut down the fair proportions of the County 
to a third-rate body politic ; " crush out " the pride that once 
every man felt to belong to this ancient County ; and they 
will feel (and why should they not ?) that everything is reduced 
9 



66 



to a matter of a few dollars more or a few dollars less in a 
year; and that they have no equivalent in return for any 
sacrifice which they would otherwise willingly make. 

And why should any 18 or 20 towns in any other part of 
the County be refused, if, after passing this act, they should 
come to this Legislature, and show that they can save on an 
average a few miles' travel in a year, and ask to be made into 
a new county ? 

Conceal it, therefore, as we may, this question is not the 
mere setting off of these 18 towns from Worcester County, 
but whether the County shall be cut up, and divided again 
and again, till a mere fraction shall be left, with public build- 
ings uselessly too large for her, — erected for the County as 
she once was, — and saddled with a debt which was con- 
tracted for the benefit and by the agency of those who have 
gone out from her. 

Old Hampshire was cut into three parts, because three con- 
siderable towns equally distant and centrally situated from East 
to "West indicated that division, if one must be made. 

But what shall prevent every cluster of towns in Worcester 
County from claiming to be made into a county, if this divis- 
ion now asked for is made, and any ambitions town, for a 
nucleus and a county seat, can be found ? 

In this way there is not a town or a citizen in the whole 
county of Worcester that is not interested in this question of 
division, as a matter of policy and a matter of right between 
man and man. 

The County, by the act of every part, has incurred heavy 
expenses and responsibilities for the accommodation of every 
part, having reference to the County as one entire community, 
for many years to come. 

And it is proposed to curtail the County, and to throw the 
entire debt, (for such is the intimation of the law in the case 
between Hampshire and Franklin County, 16 M. R., p. 86,) 
upon the people who shall be left in the old county. 

And what is more, it is asked of you to do this act against 
the wishes both of those who are to be set off, and of those \who 
remam, merely because Fitchburg "demands" it — to use the 
language of Col. Phillips. 



67 

In thus alluding, so often, to the action and zeal of Fitch- 
burg in this matter, let it not be supposed that the respondents 
have any hostile feelings against her. Why should they have ? 
Her prosperity and importance goes to swell the power and 
influence and importance of the whole County. 

No one would detract a tittle from the legitimate sources o f 
her prosperity. 

She has grown most signally, without having had the courts 
to aid her, and she still has the elements of a far wider and 
more rapid growth, of which not one of those who remonstrate 
against this division, would deprive her of the smallest tittle. 

But is it right, is it just, that her wealth and increase of 
population and power should be built up at the expense of 
every other town in the County ? 

Will you do this, when by so doing, you aim a blow at the 
prosperity, the honest pride and cherished memories of a whole 
community ? 

Before passing to another part of this subject, let me dispose 
of what I have to say upon the subject of a reference of the 
question to the people. 

In prescribing the terms in which this should be done, we re- 
spectfully contend that the question should be submitted by a Re- 
solve, without embracing the proposition for Fitchburg to pay 
$25,000 as a bonus. 

In the first place, the question is too solemn and important in 
its bearing upon the moral, social and personal relations of the 
communities and individuals of whom it is to be composed, to allow 
the payment of a certain sum of money, for county purposes, to 
have any legitimate weight in determining how it shall be decided. 

In the next place, a town has no authority, and ought not to 
have, to raise a sum of money by a tax, to build a court house 
for the county — that can only be done by the county. 

We think this was fully settled in Stetson vs. Kempton, 13 M. 
R. 272, and Parsons vs. Goshen, 11 Pick. 399. 

In both these cases the people of towns undertook to tax 
the town for purposes foreign from the duty imposed upon 
them, and for which other corporations should have been 
charged, and the Court held the act illegal. In one, the town 



68 

undertook to erect fortifications for defence against the enemy 
who were then threatening them, — the duty of doing which 
belonged to the State or the United States. And in the other, 
the town undertook to pay for building a county road, when the 
expense of making those was upon the county, as the law 
then was. 

And by analogy we say if the public good requires that a 
county should be created, the law imposes the duty of provid- 
ing buildings upon the county alone. 

I know we have been cited to precedents in the case of 
Lowell and Lawrence. But our answer is that the point was 
not taken, nor objection made, nor the question raised at all 
that we have heard of. Every thing, for aught appears, was 
acquiesced in without discussion. 

In the next place, one bad or dangerous precedent is no rea- 
son why another bad one should be made. 

In the next place, I believe the weight of precedent and 
example is the other way, and that when the public saw the 
danger of such measures their judgment condemned it. 

Last winter there were attempts made to induce the Legis- 
lature to pass acts authorizing Barre and North Brookfield and 
some other towns to tax themselves to aid in constructing a 
railroad. 

But after a full hearing the proposition was rejected. 

It was seen that it would be a dangerous precedent if mere 
majorities in towns might tax as they pleased the whole prop- 
erty of the town for mere purposes of trade, or business, or 
speculation. 

It was for municipal purposes and not for schemes of specu- 
lation, that towns were created into little democracies, in 
which majorities are by law to govern without any appeal. 

If in this instance, a mere majority may vote money to erect 
a Court House, not for themselves, or to be their own, but for 
the county, to be the property of the county, because it will 
add value to the estates of certain land owners, or proj&ts to 
certain men in trade, or custom to a certain hotel, why may 
it not be done for any purpose that will increase the business 
of a town ? And why may not the transient population in a 



69 



manufacturing village on the very borders of an agricultural 
town tax every farmer within it to erect a hotel, or stock a 
manufactory, or build a railroad, or open and manage a 
" Protective Union Store," for the sole benefit of that village? 

This is no idle matter. It is of grave magnitude, and if it 
is to become a guide and precedent for future Legislatures, it 
is of immense importance that it should be wisely and delib- 
erately determined as a matter of legal right and propriety. 

But another ground why it ought not to be inserted is, that 
call it what you will, it is the offer of a hid or bribe for a thing 
that ought to be granted, if at all, on public grounds and pub- 
lic grounds alone. 

It may be said that these towns are not to be bribed or in- 
fluenced by such a sum. 

Then why put it in at all ? Why treat them as if they could 
be thus bought ? 

Even the Petitioners ask no such thing in their petition. 
And yet, when it was stricken out of a former bill, we have 
been told that friends of the division were not a little disturb- 
ed, and many unkind words were uttered on the occasion. 

It is certainly somewhat singular, if it is not for the purpose 
of buying something with this money, that the people of Fitch- 
burg should be so anxious to thrust so generous a bounty 
upon people who never have asked for it. 

How such an offer as this will commend itself in the light 
of a " sop''' to the independent yeomen and manufacturers of 
North Worcester, to hold their peace and yield up their own 
convictions, I must leave for others to determine. 

But one thing let me say, if this matter of being a shire 
town is to be treated in the light of a thing to be bid for, why 
not put it up openly in a fair vendue, that Leomister and 
Gardner and Templeton and Shirley may come in as competi- 
tors ? 

Or if Fitchburg may by law, make up a purse to compel 
the 22 towns to join her, why not let Princeton and Hubbards- 
ton and Petersham and Shirley, or Bolton and Harvard and 
Lancaster, see if they cannot make up a larger one to be left 
where they are? 



% 



Some of those towns had better do it than build the roads 
it has been testified they will have to build, if the county is 
divided. 

And if it is to be done, let it be done deliberately ; let there 
be ample time for the people to judge upon the question. 
Nor is there any occasion to put them to the expense of extra 
town meetings, since November will be in ample season, even 
if the vote shall be for a division. 

But whatever may be the form in which you see fit to put 
this subject to the people, put it in some form that the question 
may be at rest for the present. 

We ask you to put no check or restraint upon the right of pe- 
tition. But one part of the people of these towns have as 
good a right to remonstrate as the other part have to petition. 
And they may, if you will give them the chance, remonstrate 
in tones so strong and decided as to put this question at rest. 

But to continue this struggle is full of mischief. This at- 
tempt to weary out those who oppose this measure and to 
get by importunity what would never be got by fair argument, 
tends to bring the sacred right of petition itself into disfavor. 

There is a legal maxim, " Interest rei publicae ut sit finis 
litium," that applies with great force to this very case : The 
public good requires that there should be an end to legal strife. 

Careful and courteous as parties and witnesses have been 
here, you have seen enough to know that the subject is deep- 
ly agitating the public mind in that community. It has 
awakened bitter feelings, and fostered prejudices and heart- 
burnings in a population which has hitherto been a united and 
prosperous community. 

It has even been attempted to show, though I am happy to 
believe without effect, that it has entered into party politics. 
The very attempt to prove this, shows that it has been thought 
of as an ingredient in that bitter cup of discord, and the peo- 
ple look to you for relief from such a disastrous consumma- 
tion. 

They know but one way to do this, and that they have 
spread before you. More than 4000 of the citizens of these 
towns have come before you, and waiving the expression of 



n 



their own preferences on the subject of division, have earnest- 
ly prayed the Legislature, the guardians of the public peace, 
to have this vexed and vexatious question settled by the tribu- 
nal that best knows how to do it. 

And who should refuse the prayer of the Petitioners ? Why 
should Barnstable, or Essex, or Norfolk, or Hampshire, inter- 
pose to prevent this storm of excited feeling from subsiding, 
that peace and harmony and good fellowship may again re- 
turn to this community. 

There are one or two more considerations that do not in- 
volve matters of detail which I wish to present to your at- 
tention. 

There is a policy in this breaking up and reducing counties 
which seems to me unwise, and ought not to be pursued. 

They do not exist for the mere purpose of trying causes, 
or punishing criminals. 

They are, as I have said, social and political in their charac- 
ters, and as such they each have their own associations and 
habits of thought as well as local interests. 

They are, in a larger sphere, what towns are within a more 
limited one, where men are bound together by a common 
tie of sympathy and interest. 

And the framers of the Constitution understood this when 
they provided that the popular branch should be selected from 
the several towns, while the Districts from which the Senators 
were chosen should be the counties. 

In this they provided, in effect, that all great questions 
should be viewed from different stand points, and that the 
great, independent sectional views and opinions existing in 
different counties should be felt and represented in the making 
of our laws. 

And the importance of this gradation of little Democracies 
from the School District, up through Parish, Town, County to 
the State, can only be appreciated by comparing Massachu^ 
setts with any state where no such corporations, less than 
counties, exist. 

It is illustrated every year by the legislatures who success- 
ively fill these halls. 



72 



How otherwise than by the training that they acquire in 
the transaction of the business of these little corporate democ- 
racies, are men able to come here new, fresh from the people, 
unaccustomed to the halls of legislation, and yet acquire at 
once the forms of proceeding and always sustaining the self- 
respect of men who have tried their own powers and know how 
to rely upo7i themselves ? 

You cannot abolish these without well nigh destroying the 
very character of Massachusetts. 

Nor can you weaken or break down the healthy esprit du 
corps of these communities without injuring the stability and 
tone of the whole public sentiment. 

In Worcester county now, this harmony of feeling and sen- 
timent and opinion is strong from the homogeneous character 
of its population. An interior and mainly an agricultural 
community, their trade and manufactures and mechanic arts 
have no particular locality, nor is one part a jealous compet- 
itor with another. 

Now, it is idle to deny that such a community, wealthy, 
intelligent and uinted, will exercise an influence in a Com- 
monwealth. And why should she be deprived of it? She 
has earned it by the industry and intelligence of her sons ; why 
seek to belittle her by cutting her up into pieces, and thus 
destroy that incentive to effort in her citizens to elevate her 
character and keep alive an honest and honorable ambition ? 

Would you cut up New York into thirty States because, as 
an united body, she holds a more commanding influence in 
Congress than Delaware or Arkansas ? 

Would it be right to carve Boston into forty parts, because, 
in representing her 150,000 inhabitants, her voice in the haUs 
of legislation is more potent than a town that is represented 
but half the time ? 

This tendency to belittle every thing, to reduce every body down 
to the lowest possible degree of respect or influence in a com- 
munity, is perfectly at war with the growth and prosperity and 
elevation of a state. 

Let the same policy which has made Worcester what she is, be 



73 

the leading policy of the state, and there is no limit to her moral 
and scarcely her physical power. 

In 1731, Worcester was thought too feeble to sustain county 
relations, and now she stands the 3d county in the state. 

In 1820, she stood below Old Hampshire in wealth and popula- 
tion, and the richness of her soil. Now she outstrips the whole 
three counties together, into which that territory was divided. 
Hampshire was broken up. Worcester has been united. Leave 
her so — that her sons may still feel that they have a common stake 
in the great problem of her future success and destiny. 

And the lesson taught by this comparison between Worcester and 
old Hampshire and old Hampshire cut in pieces, ought not to be lost. 
A statement was put into the case by Col. Lee, from which it ap- 
pears that from 1790 to 1810, the plurality of Hampshire over 
Worcester had increased from 3 to 11,000. In 1811, Franklin 
was cut off, and from that day the balance began to change in 
favor of Worcester united. In 1820, the balance was but 10,000 ; 
in 1840, it was less than 2;000 ; and in 1850, the balance against 
the 3 counties was 12,949. 

Of the tendency of this frittering away and destroying the relative 
power and influence of Worcester County upon the state, I cannot 
say half I would. But I must presume upon your patience to 
urge, that the effect of such a measure is to withdraw power from 
the country and merge and concentrate it here. 

I have already referred to the influence of counties in their con- 
nexion with the government as originally designed. When large 
counties existed, those counties had a voice that was heard. 

The time was, when Berkshire and old Hampshire, and Wor- 
cester, and Bristol, and Essex, and Middlesex had independent opin- 
ions of their own. They had their own leading men who thought 
for themselves, and did much to give tone and direction to local 
thought. 

The merchants from the interior visited Boston twice a year to 
buy goods and pay their debts, and not to settle politics or take 
their cue as to how they should talk or think. 

And the consequence was, that in the decision of political issues, 
or the shaping of public policy, the capital waited to hear from 
Berkshire, and the response of the " River Gods, " and what direc- 
10 



74 

tion the men of Essex were to take, and how the press of Middle- 
sex or Worcester regarded the question to be decided. 

But how is it now ? For miles around the Capital, the Norfolk 
and Middlesex and Essex men have their business homes in 
Boston, while from a still larger circle every considerable trader, 
manufacturer or dealer in any form, is as familiar with " Change " 
and the places and men of business here, as if he did not sleep at 
night 25 miles from State street. 

The consequence is, instead of the city having her public opin- 
ion and the country counties theirs, to act as checks, and balances, 
and correctives upon each other, every thing of that kind originates 
and emanates from here — and is carried through the state as having 
the sanction and influence, and power, and sentiment of the whole 
Commonwealth. 

I need not take up your time for proof and illustration. Who 
manages party politics, or gives shape and direction to what are 
called the moral movements of the day ? Who hold the votes and 
elect the Directors of the Railroads that centre here, or who holds 
that great engine the currency, by which the business of the coun- 
try is controlled ? 

Let me not be misunderstood — I make no complaint of this — it 
grows out of the very nature of the improved means of access to the 
city. I do not seek even to curtail it. 

But we want some corrective power — some agent strong enough 
to guide this mighty central force when its course becomes way- 
ward or erratic. 

And I know not where you will find it if not in our county or- 
ganizations. Suppose these destroyed — suppose the state one 
great corporation like a town, made up only of citizens, with no re- 
lations between her and themselves, could we look for any check 
upon the combined, contracted influence of the tact and intelligence 
and wealth clustered around these banks, and within view from this 
state house ? 

Thousands lament that the vcnce of Old Hampshire is broken 
and divided, and does not tell as it used to in the day of her union, 
and consequently, her moral power. Mr. Litchfield heard this 
among i)xQ farmers of old Hampshire herself, and changed his 
opinion as to dividing Worcester County. Worcester and Berk- 



75 



shire are the only interior agricultural communities that remain 
unbroken and substantially unimpaired, from the causes to which I 
have alluded. 

Will you break down these too ? Why not leave as many as you 
can of the elements that went to make Massachusetts the Com- 
monwealth she has so proudly claimed to be ? 

Leave at least old Worcester County her associations, her pride, 
her history, and her na7ne. 

As for the city of Worcester, I have not a word further to say. 
She is only of consequence in this controversy, as she is an integral 
part of a large county. Situated as she is, surrounded by intelli- 
gent and influential towns, without a dollar of capital employed 
beyond her own borders, she must borrow her opinions and influ- 
ence from the county around her rather than exercise any control- 
ing influence over them. 

But if it were otherwise, would you strike down the moral power 
of Worcester County, because the shire town of that county held a 
leading position among her associated towns ? 

I congratulate you that I am about to relieve you from my own 
poor presentation of this case. 

I have but one more suggestion to make against this division, 
and that is, the feelings of the people whom you are asked to sever 
and divide. 

The Petitioners rest their case upon a matter of dollars and 
cents. We have met them there, and we think successfully. But 
there are some things that it would be mockery to try to measure 
by a scale so sordid. Among these are the sanctity of home feel- 
ings and home associations. Every body knows the hold that old 
associations have upon a generous mind, and that these are beyond 
price. What would you say to the man who should ask you to 
cut down " the old familiar tree " under which you played with 
your brothers and sisters in childhood, because it would bring so 
much a, cord for fire wood ? 

You have heard man after man come up here and tell you in 
earnest tone, " they do not wish to be cut off from their old asso- 
ciations with Worcester County. 

They feel as if they had a personal interest in her welfare and 
her honor. They have helped to earn her wealth, and to strengthen 



76 

her influence, and they do not now wish to be driven off like the 
bond woman and her son of old, to form new associations and new 
ties, and to take upon themselves a new and unfamiliar name. 

You may call it weakness. But it is a weakness which no gen- 
erous mind need be ashamed to confess. 

And in this matter, I not only speak for them, but I speak for 
the whole County of Worcester, as she is. I plead for her sons, 
who are to share with her, in her progress or in her decline. 

I ask for them, that when they go abroad they may still feel that 
glow of honest pride which her sons have always experienced when 
claiming for their home the old Central County of Massachusetts. 

I ask for her children who have gone out from her, and are filling 
stations of honor and usefulness wherever they are found scattered 
all over the Union, that they may feel that her name, still undivided, 
still united, still affluent in every thing that makes a people honored, 
is a part of the heritage that has come down to them from fathers 
who are sleeping in the old church yards of their native county. 

She has no battle field of the Revolution, like Middlesex, to plead 
for her, it is true. But there was not a battle field in all that long 
struggle in which her sons did not have a part. 

There is scarce an old and time worn cottage along the hill sides 
and valleys of that county, that has not been consecrated by the 
fire-side tales of suffering and exposure at " Old Ti, " or Crown 
Point, or Quebec, or at Bunker Hill, or Saratoga, or Yorktown, of 
those who went out into the French and Revolutionary wars, as 
volunteers from Worcester County. 

That generation with its hardships and inconveniences has passed 
away, and another with its rugged ways made smooth and easy, is 
now before you. But do not sever the bond of union and common 
sympathy that binds them together, nor needlessly do violence to 
those associations that endear them to this ancient and honored 
County. 

She was the child of the Legislature. She has repaid the care 
which was bestowed on her in her infancy, and cheerfully borne 
her share in the public burdens in peace and in war. 

Do not, I pray you, by a blow like this which you are now called 
upon to inflict, strike down her fair proportions and her strength, 
and wound incurably her just ambition and her honest pride. 



SUBSTANCE 



REMAEKS OF MR. A¥ASHBUM 



HKFOltF. A 



CniiiiiiittBe nf tlje IfgiBlatiire, 



rrox TiiK 



PETITION OF OILMAN DAY AND OTHERS 



DIVISION OF WORCESTER COUNTY 




WORCESTER: 
PRINTED BY E . 15. . aM S K E . 

18 5 5. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




013 996 540 1 



uffnfffffm 



